A set of documents purporting to capture the discussions of the United States–United Kingdom Trade and Investment Working Group from 2018 has recently been released into the public domain.
The idea of entrusting party-appointed arbitrators with powers to decide investor–state disputes through final and binding awards, inherited from commercial arbitration and traditionally accepted as appropriate, now causes discomfort among critics.
The CJEU has deemed that the ICS included in the Canada–EU CETA is consistent with EU law, issuing its final opinion on April 30, 2019.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has weighed in on the European Commission’s recommendation for a European Council decision to launch negotiations on the proposed MIC, supporting discussions on ISDS reform while noting areas for improvement.
CJEU Advocate General Yves Bot issued a non-binding opinion on January 29, 2019, deeming that the ICS included in the Canada–EU CETA is compatible with EU law. Bot assessed the ICS against the EU Treaty, the TFEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
On October 19, 2018, Singapore and the European Union signed political and trade agreements as well as the EU–Singapore Investment Protection Agreement (IPA).
On July 17, 2018, EC President Jean-Claude Juncker and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signed the Japan–European Union (EU) Economic Partnership Agreement (JEEPA).
On March 20, 2018, the Council of the European Union adopted negotiating directives authorizing the European Commission to negotiate a convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes.
On December 8, 2017, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced the finalization of the negotiations of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Union and Japan.
Beyond advancing its Investment Court System (ICS) proposal in bilateral negotiations, the European Union continues its efforts toward establishing a multilateral investment court (MIC).
The three parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) held the third, fourth and fifth rounds of renegotiation (Ottawa, September 23–27; Arlington, October 11–17; and Mexico City, November 17–21). The next round of NAFTA renegotiations is scheduled for January 23–28, 2018 in Montreal.
On September 6, 2017, Belgium submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) a request for an opinion on the compatibility of the ICS with the European Treaties.
After Canada’s ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on May 17, 2017, Canada and the European Commission agreed to start the provisional application of the agreement on September 21, 2017.
Can the European Union act alone in concluding agreements such as CETA and the EU–Singapore FTA? Or must EU member states also ratify them? ECJ Advocate General Sharpston discusses the allocation of powers in the field of investment under EU law.
On February 15, 2017, the European Parliament approved the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), signed by Canada and the European Union on October 30, 2016 after seven years of negotiations. The […]
On December 13 and 14, 2016, the European Commission and the Canadian Government co-hosted exploratory discussions on establishing a multilateral investment court. Government representatives from several countries attended the closed-door meeting in […]
On October 30, during the 16th European Union–Canada Summit held in Brussels, the two negotiating partners signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), after seven years of negotiations.
On July 5, 2016, the European Commission proposed to the Council that the Canada–European Union CETA—agreed to in 2014 and re-concluded in February 2016—be signed as a “mixed agreement,” requiring signature and ratification by each of the EU member states.
Responding to EU requests, Canadian and EU officials reopened negotiations of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) concluded in 2014 to reformulate the agreement’s investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause. Re-concluded […]
Legality of investor–state dispute settlement (including in the form of an Investment Court System) in EU trade agreements under EU law is a contentious issue. This article details four legal objections raised by academics and legal experts, and discusses the potential for a legal challenge of ISDS under EU law.
EU officials are said to have requested the new Canadian federal government to revisit the ISDS clause in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), according to reports by CBC News on January 21, 2016.
In a statement issued in early February 2016, the German Association of Judges (known by its German acronym, DRB) firmly rejected the proposal published by the European Commission on September 16, 2015 to establish an Investment Court System (ICS) under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union and the United States.
On December 2, 2015, the European Union and Vietnam signed a free trade agreement (FTA), closing three years of negotiations.