As discussed in our blog post here, on 21 December 2016 the EU Commission launched a public consultation on the multilateral reform of the investment dispute settlement system. The consultation closed on 15 March 2017 with a full report of the responses anticipated later this year. Herbert Smith Freehills has submitted a position paper to the Commission in response to the consultation.
A copy of Herbert Smith Freehills' response to the consultation can be found here.
The response is divided into four sections. The first sets out our understanding of the Commission's proposals for either a Multilateral Investment Court System (M-ICS) or a Multilateral Appeals Tribunal (MAT). The second considers the scope of the Commission's efforts to establish a new framework (of either the M-ICS or MAT) and the potential political and practical implications. The third section considers the benefits and impact of an M-ICS of MAT within the context of the differing proposals. The fourth section considers the characteristics which may be considered advantageous for either system and the potential differences which might be anticipated, depending on the choice of an M-ICS or MAT.
To discuss the issues raised in the Commission's consultation questionnaire, in Herbert Smith Freehills' response to the consultation, or investor-state dispute settlement more generally, please contact Larry Shore, Partner, Christian Leathley, Partner, Andrew Cannon, Partner, Iain Maxwell, Of Counsel, Vanessa Naish, Professional Support Consultant or Hannah Ambrose, Professional Support Consultant.