Saturday

26th Nov 2022

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.

News in Brief

  1. 'Pro-Kremlin group' in EU Parliament cyberattack
  2. Ukraine will decide on any peace talks, Borrell says
  3. Germany blocks sale of chip factory to Chinese subsidiary
  4. Strikes and protests over cost-of-living grip Greece, Belgium
  5. Liberal MEPs want Musk quizzed in parliament
  6. Bulgarian policeman shot dead at Turkish border
  7. 89 people allowed to disembark in Italy, aid group says
  8. UN chief tells world: Cooperate on climate or perish

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersCOP27: Food systems transformation for climate action
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersThe Nordic Region and the African Union urge the COP27 to talk about gender equality
  3. International Sustainable Finance CentreJoin CEE Sustainable Finance Summit, 15 – 19 May 2023, high-level event for finance & business
  4. Friedrich Naumann Foundation European DialogueGender x Geopolitics: Shaping an Inclusive Foreign Security Policy for Europe
  5. Obama FoundationThe Obama Foundation Opens Applications for its Leaders Program in Europe
  6. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBA lot more needs to be done to better protect construction workers from asbestos

Latest News

  1. Sweden says 'no' to EU asylum relocation pledges
  2. The 'proof' problem with EU sanctions — and how to fix it
  3. The EU gas cap: will the bottle ever be 'uncorked'?
  4. Enough talk, only rights can eliminate patriarchal violence
  5. Swedish EU presidency: 'Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine'
  6. EU Commission to keep Hungary's EU funds in limbo
  7. 'No substance' price ceiling for gas leaves everyone disgruntled
  8. Paying consumers who save most energy could tame gas prices

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. European Committee of the RegionsRe-Watch EURegions Week 2022
  2. UNESDA - Soft Drinks EuropeCall for EU action – SMEs in the beverage industry call for fairer access to recycled material
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic prime ministers: “We will deepen co-operation on defence”
  4. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  6. European Centre for Press and Media FreedomEuropean Anti-SLAPP Conference 2022

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us