Thursday

23rd Sep 2021

Opinion

Compatibility with EU law is not real issue with ISDS

The European Court of Justice is about to decide whether the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in EU trade agreements is compatible with EU law.

But legality should not be our main concern here. There are much better approaches to international investment and we should be considering them.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

For those who may have forgotten, ISDS is the controversial mechanism in EU trade agreements that allows international investors to sue states for compensation when they don't make as much profit as anticipated - it's the number one reason that millions of Europeans protested against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada.

On Tuesday (30 April), the European Court of Justice is expected to hand down its decision on whether ISDS is compatible with European law.

Regardless of the court's decision, amidst all the controversy a whole range of alternatives that could be - or already are - more effective in addressing the kind of problems that arise around international investment have been completely overlooked.

The following are some of the alternatives that the EU must seriously consider.

Simple alternatives

First of all, international investors can simply use the existing legal systems in Europe if they encounter serious problems while investing here.

Member states are required to have fully developed legal systems in place and most require a much more solid legal foundation than an unmet expectation of profit in order for an investor to mount a court case against the state.

However, if the EU does persist with ISDS mechanisms, at the very least these should require that national legal remedies must be exhausted before any international arbitration can begin.

This would not only insist on the primary role of European law courts but also put pressure on investors to act according to national law, thereby reducing the potential for arbitration in the first place.

But respect for European legal systems is not the main issue here.

Bill in billions for taxpayer?

Moreover, such court cases would come at enormous cost to EU member states that could be forced to pay the lawyers and the millions or even billions in compensation to multinational investors using public funds collected from tax payers.

When the legal basis of the cases would be so doubtful and public budgets could be bankrupted, this is totally unjustifiable.

The EU Commission has claimed that ISDS mechanisms would bring income to the EU by encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI).

However, there are significant cases of countries receiving large amounts of FDI that do not have such investment treaties in place, which indicates that ISDS mechanisms are not the key to attracting foreign investment.

If attracting and protecting foreign investment is a primary concern for the EU, then there is also the option of investment insurance.

This is already common practice in the investment sector and, if managed responsibly by governments, can provide a way for investors to mitigate their risks.

If, similar to car or house insurance, investors pay for insurance and when a legitimate claim is made, the pool of funds collected is used to pay compensation, both the costs and the benefits of international investment would remain in the private sector.

This is in contrast to ISDS, which enables the private sector to reap all the benefits of investment while forcing the costs of court cases and compensation onto states.

So, if multinational investors can simply take out insurance, why are their lobbyists pushing so hard for ISDS?

The answer is that it's not really about legal rights, court cases and compensation.

Court cases require significant resources from a company and are risky because they may not succeed.

Multinational investors stand to benefit in much bigger and easier ways: fear of large bills for compensation can prevent governments from adopting new laws that could trigger ISDS cases, thus removing these 'barriers' to profits.

The EU's trade and investment agreements are also 'living' agreements that include clauses on 'regulatory cooperation', which involves ongoing reviews and meetings to continue adapting these agreements to new circumstances.

This means that multinational lobbyists can continue meeting with the commission to push for even more advantageous conditions for their investments on an endless basis.

In stark contrast, if the EU were to reject this approach altogether and consider the alternatives, more balanced proposals such as including binding human rights and environmental sustainability clauses in trade and investment agreements could be adopted.

Alongside developing the binding treaty on business and human rights, this would conversely give states the right to sue and penalise investors when they commit human rights abuses and environmental damage.

By rejecting ISDS in favour of the alternatives, some of the most serious concerns of the millions of citizens who protested against ISDS would be addressed and governments could stop wasting time on this very unpopular proposal.

Multinational investors would lose the right to sue governments and weaken human rights and environmental legislation, but they were never entitled to this in the first place.

Author bio

Anne-Marie Mineur is a Dutch MEP and member of the parliament's international trade committee who has further outlined the options for the EU's approach to international investment regulation in a GUE/NGL position paper.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

TTIP's future in Trump's hands

EU commissioners admit they "frankly don't know" what the US president-elect intends to do with the US-EU trade talks.

Belgium green lights unchanged Ceta

Wallonia and Brussels have voted to give the federal government the power to sign the EU-Canada trade deal, whose content is not altered by the new documents attached.

EU-Vietnam trade deal a bad day for workers' rights

Behind the smiles and handshakes, the signature of the EU-Vietnam trade and investment deals agreed on Tuesday and to be signed this week have dire consequences for human well-being and our ability to prevent climate and ecological breakdown.

EU top court backs Canada trade deal in ruling

The European Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday that the EU-Canada free trade agreement, and its controversial dispute settlement mechanism, is in line with the bloc's rules.

The EU's 'backyard' is not in the Indo-Pacific

Europe is no longer an Indo-Pacific power. It will not become an Indo-Pacific power. And if it keeps overreaching its geopolitical ambitions, Europe might lose its credibility as a power - entirely.

News in Brief

  1. French ambassador to return to US after Macron-Biden call
  2. Borrell: EU needs armed force independent of US
  3. Polish region does U-turn on gay rights
  4. Johnson makes fun of French anger on submarine deal
  5. Ukraine vows 'tough response' after gun attack on top aide
  6. Poland again delays ruling on primacy of EU law
  7. EU to table emergency proposals on gas-price surge
  8. EU delays first set of anti-greenwashing rules

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNATO Secretary General guest at the Session of the Nordic Council
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersCan you love whoever you want in care homes?
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNineteen demands by Nordic young people to save biodiversity
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersSustainable public procurement is an effective way to achieve global goals
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council enters into formal relations with European Parliament
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersWomen more active in violent extremist circles than first assumed

Latest News

  1. More French names linked to Russia election-monitoring
  2. Negotiations set for new, tougher, EU ethics body
  3. Lead energy MEP silent on gas meetings before vote
  4. WHO makes major cut in 'safe' air-pollution levels
  5. EU negotiators defend high Covid vaccines prices paid to pharma
  6. The EU's 'backyard' is not in the Indo-Pacific
  7. French MEPs lead bogus EU monitoring of Russia vote
  8. Europeans think new 'Cold War' is here - but not for them

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us