CYIL 2015

361 / 464

347
TTIP AND ISDS: NOT IRRECONCILABLE ACRONYMS
calling on EU decision-makers to stop the TTIP negotiations and to not ratify
the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).7 These
circumstances are not helping to improve the prospects for the agreement.
Where are the sources of such animosity towards a more ambitious than usual
but still trade agreement? In the context of the TTIP there are numerous issues
which cause concerns for stakeholders. Just to mention a few: the non-transparency
of negotiations being conducted behind closed doors; lower food, environmental,
labour standards; rolling back regulations in the financial sector; and generally the
sacrificing of democratic rights for corporate interests.8 One issue still draws more
attention than the rest – investment protection and the investor-state dispute
settlement mechanism – ISDS, which is now, according to Trade Commissioner
Cecilia Malmström, “the most toxic acronym in Europe”.9
A united front involving political parties, trade unions, consumer organizations
and various NGOs has merged in opposition against investment protection and
particularly ISDS, and it effectively campaigns across the EU against its inclusion
in the TTIP. Clearly, the ISDS mechanism has become the most controversial topic
in the negotiations. It is threatening not only the prospect for the TTIP, but also
the ratification of CETA.10 The unbalance in public discourse remains unchanged
even after efforts of business groups such as Business Europe11 or the Federation of
German Industries12 to rebalance the debate around the trade initiative. Also, the EU
Member States governments call for stronger defence of the TTIP.13
Fortunately, the debate about the presence of investment protection and ISDS
in the TTIP is not just driven by NGOs that often observe their ideological motives.
It is also a subject of serious academic disputations and cost and benefits analyses. In
7 While the EU’s ongoing negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with
the United States have grabbed the headlines, little attention in Europe has been given to the similar
agreements the EU has already completed with Canada and Singapore.
8 Friends of the Earth Europe, EU-US trade deal, see
9 POLITICO, Malmström to unveil investment dispute plan for TTIP, see
article/eu-malmstrom-unveils-ttip-investment-dispute-settlement-plan/.
10 Doak Bishop, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership: Have the Negotiations Run Around?, ICSID Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2015), p. 2.
11 Business Europe, Investor-State Dispute Settlement – A necessary mechanism to ensure investment
protection, Position paper (2 May 2014), see
asp?PageID=568&DocID=32983.
12 Federation of German Industries, Background: Facts and Figures. International Investment Agreements
and Investor-State Dispute Settlement, BDI-Document No. 0007 (29 April 2014), see http://www.
Investment_Agreements.pdf.
13 In a letter dated 21 October 2014 ministers of fourteen EU Member States (Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
and United Kingdom) to Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Trade, intervened in support of an
investment chapter in the TTIP.