London-based partner Nicholas Peacock has authored an article for Manufacturing Today Europe, together with associates Jerome Temme and Olga Dementyeva, covering how clients in the manufacturing sector can manage political risk when investing abroad.
Tag: Investment protection
The last few months have seen significant changes to mining regulations in various African states, giving rise to a concern that a regional trend of resource nationalism may be (re-)emerging. In this context it is important for companies associated with the mining sector to be aware of the protection international investment treaties may provide against the impact of resource nationalism on their assets, and how to maximise that protection before risks materialise. This bulletin briefly considers some of the last few months’ developments, before discussing how companies can use investment treaties to protect themselves against the risks they pose.
The proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US, two of the world’s largest economies, is intended to remove trade barriers, create wealth and promote investment. On 13 January, the European Commission published the results of its public consultation on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TTIP. Of the 150,000 responses, 97 per cent were negative. Critics have stated that the ISDS proposals would allow corporates to undermine regulation by governments in fields such as environmental protection. A further consultation is promised.
But why has ISDS in TTIP aroused such opposition? Can it be improved to strike a balance between investment protection and the right of governments to regulate? And, if TTIP is a blueprint for future free trade agreements (FTAs), what lies in store for this form of dispute resolution?
Chatham House in partnership with Herbert Smith Freehills are holding a symposium to bring together voices from across a broad range of stakeholders.
Sapfo Constantatos, Senior Group Legal Counsel, Dispute Resolution in the General Counsel’s Office, Standard Chartered Bank
Andrew Coop, Senior Legal Adviser, EU and International Trade, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Lorenzo Cotula, Principal Researcher, Law and Sustainable Development, International Institute for Environment and Development
Andrea Shemberg, Lead, Investment and Human Rights Project, London School of Economics; Legal Adviser to UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights (2007-11)
Christian Leathley, Partner, International Arbitration and Public International Law, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, London
Andrew Cannon, Partner, International Arbitration and Public International Law, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, London
For further information, please click here.
On Friday 26 September, after five years of negotiations, the EU and Canada agreed in principle to a text for the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA). It is certainly comprehensive, running to 1,500 pages. It is the first such agreement signed by the EU as part of its policy (since the Lisbon Treaty) of assuming competence for trade and investment from the individual Member States. Its contents have therefore been keenly anticipated as an indication of the tone of future agreements, particularly as regards investment protection and investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) contained in Chapter X.
CETA’s provisions are comprehensive as regards both of these areas, but with significant caveats, largely mirroring the drafts that have so far been made public in the EU-US forthcoming agreement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (see our earlier post on the TTIP consultation here).
As its Preamble sets out, the agreement expressly recognizes “that the protection of investments… stimulates mutually beneficial business activity“. At the same time, it stresses principles of governmental autonomy (including enforcement of labour and environmental laws) which can in some circumstances limit the rights of the investor. It also points out the responsibility of businesses to respect “internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility“, bringing these soft law norms into the ambit of the agreement.
On 18 July, the EU Commission published its Preliminary Report (statistical overview) on the responses to its consultation on investment protection and ISDS in the TTIP (for discussion of the consultation, see our previous blog post).
The Preliminary Report demonstrates that there was considerable interest in the consultation, with a total of 149,399 online replies. The greatest number of replies came from the UK at 34.8%, with 22.59% from Austria and 21.76% from Germany. The high proportion of responses from Germany in particular is unsurprising, given that the German Government’s approach to ISDS has received considerable coverage in both the legal and mainstream press.
Significantly, over 99% of responses were submitted by individuals (with only 569 by organisations, many of which were NGOs). 42% of the respondents agreed that their contribution can be made public and the Commission will publish those responses in due course.
The Commission will now analyse the responses, a task which it says is unlikely to be completed before November. It remains to be seen how the response analysis will influence the EU’s approach to negotiations of these issues with the US.
For further information, please contact Christian Leathley, Partner, Hannah Ambrose, Professional Support Lawyer, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.
The European Commission has launched a public consultation on its proposed approach to investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (the TTIP). The TTIP is a free trade agreement currently in negotiation between the United States and the European Union. Negotiations for the TTIP began in July 2013.
The Commission has described its approach as containing “a series of innovative elements that the EU proposes using as the basis for the TTIP negotiations” and stated that the key issue on which it is consulting is “whether the EU’s proposed approach for TTIP achieves the right balance between protecting investors and safeguarding the EU’s right and ability to regulate in the public interest”.
Whilst the EU is not consulting on a draft text of the TTIP, it has included as a reference text the investment protection and ISDS provisions in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (the CETA), between the EU and Canada.
Whilst we are currently a long way from a signed agreement including investment protection and ISDS provisions, stakeholders may nonetheless want to take this opportunity to consider the ways in which the EU’s approach and the negotiations could impact upon them. The European Commission’s Consultation can be found here and closes on 6 July 2014.