Implications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) for Investment Flows Between the European Union and the USA

Janina Witkowska

doi:10.1515/cer-2017-0018

Authors

Janina Witkowska University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Institute of Economics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2017-0018

Keywords:

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), investor‑state dispute‑settlement (ISDS), foreign direct investment (FDI), USA, UE

Abstract

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a controversial subject, but at the same time it is perceived to be the most comprehensive international agreement on free trade and investment protection. Among the topics that evoke criticism on the part of different social groups is the investor‑state dispute‑settlement (ISDS), as well as its legal consequences for the EU Member states. A less discussed issue is the potential implications of the agreement on the state of economic co‑operation between the European Union and the USA in the field of investment flows, with special reference to foreign direct investment (FDI). The aim of this paper is to present the discussion related to the ISDS and examine some of the economic, political and legal implications of TTIP provisions for FDI flows between the EU and the USA. The proposals of the European Commission to change the investment protection system might be treated as an attempt to make the system of arbitrage more transparent and convincing to societies, and safer for states. The effects of the TTIP agreement for FDI between both partners might be dependent on the scale of trade creation and diversion effects, and the mirror effects of investment creation and diversion under a free trade area.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AGENDA of the 2204th meeting of the Commission, 14 March 2017, European Commission Secretariat General OJ(2017) 2204 Final.
Google Scholar

Bishop D. (2015), Investor‑State Dispute Settlement Under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Have the Negotiations Run Aground?, ‘ICSID Review’, vol. 30, No. 1.
Google Scholar

Bottini G. (2016), Using investor‑state dispute settlement to enforce investor obligations, ‘Columbia FDI Perspectives’ No. 173.
Google Scholar

Bronckers M. (2015), Is Investor‑State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Superior to Litigation Before Domestic Courts? An EU View on Bilateral Trade Agreements, ‘Journal of International Economic Law’, 18, doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgv035, download from http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/ at Uniwersytet Łódzki April 19, 2016.
Google Scholar

Chase P.H. (2015), TTIP, investor‑state dispute settlement and the rule of law, ‘European View’ 2015, 14:217–229, doi 10.1007/s12290–015–0377‑z.
Google Scholar

Czarny E., Folfas P. (2016), Unia Europejska i Stany Zjednoczone w globalnej produkcji i międzynarodowej współpracy gospodarczej a TTIP, [in:] E. Czarny, M. Słok‑Wódkowska eds. Partnerstwo Transatlantyckie. Wnioski dla Polski, PWE, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Deutscher Richterbund (2016), Stellungnahme zur Errichtung eines Investitionsgerichts fur TTIP‑Vorschlag der Europaischen Kommission vom 16.09. 2015, No 4, February http://www.drb.de/fileadmin/docs/Stellungnahmen/2016/DRB_160201_Stn_Nr_04_Europaeisches_Investitionsgericht. pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2015), The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP explained, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/may/tradoc_152462.pdf, (accessed on 20.04.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2015a), Investment in TTIP and beyond‑the path for reform. Concept paper http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF, (accessed on 22.04.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2015b), Commission proposes new Investment Court System for TTIP and other EU trade and investment negotiations, Brussels, 16 September 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_IP–15–5651_en.htm , (accessed on12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2015c), EU finalises proposal for investment protection and Court System for TTIP, Brussels, 12 November 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_IP–15–6059‑en.htm, (accessed on 12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2016a), Services and investment in the EU trade deals. Using ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ lists http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154427.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2016b), The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – State of Play, 27 April 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154477.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

EC (2016c), Report of the 15th Round of Negotiations for The Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership, October 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/october/tradoc_155027.pdf, (accessed on 7.02.2017).
Google Scholar

EC (2016d), A future multilateral investment court, European Commission – Fact Sheet, Brussels, 13 December 2016, MEMO/16/4350, http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_MEMO–16–4350_en.htm, (accessed on 7.02. 2017).
Google Scholar

EC(2016e), The Multilateral Investment Court project http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1608, (accessed on 9.02. 2017).
Google Scholar

EC (2016f), European Commission launches public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=161, (accessed on 9.02.2017).
Google Scholar

EC (2017), Questionnaire on options for a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=233, (accessed on 9.02. 2017).
Google Scholar

Eurostat (2016), Foreign direct investment statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‑explained/index.php/Foreign_direct_investment_statistics, (accessed on 10.02.2017).
Google Scholar

Greenpeace (2016), From ISDS to ICS: A Leopard Can’t Change its Spots. Position Paper on the Commission Proposal for an Investment Court System in TTIP, Brussels, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu‑unit/Global/eu‑unit/reports‑briefings/2016/2016_02_11_Greenpeace%20Position%20Paper%20ICS_Final.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

Lorz R. A. (2014), Germany, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and investment‑dispute settlement: Observation on a paradox, ‘Columbia FDI Perspectives’ No. 132.
Google Scholar

Menkes J. (2016), Mechanizm rozstrzygania sporów inwestor – państwo i TTIP – polska perspektywa, [in:] E. Czarny, M. Słok‑Wódkowska (eds.), Partnerstwo Transatlantyckie. Wnioski dla Polski, PWE, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

OECD (2014), OECD International Direct Investment Statistics 2014, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/idis–2014‑en , (accessed on 12.05.2016).
Google Scholar

Pardo R (2014), ISDS and TTIP – A Miracle Cure for a Systemic Challenge?, ‘Policy Brief’, European Policy Centre.
Google Scholar

Pyka M. (2015), Investor‑to state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – not as unfeasible as it appears?, ‘Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne’, 11(1).
Google Scholar

UNCTAD (2015), World Investment Report 2015. Reforming International Investment Governance, New York and Geneva.
Google Scholar

UNCTAD (2016) World Investment Report 2016: Investor Nationality: Policy Challenge, New York and Geneva.
Google Scholar

U.S.‑EU Joint Report (2017) U.S.‑EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress to Date, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/january/tradoc_155242.pdf, (accessed on 9.02.2017).
Google Scholar

Watts J., (2016) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: An Overly “Ambitious” Attempt to Harmonize Divergent Philosophies on Acceptable Risks in Food Production Without Directly Addressing Areas of Disagreement, ʽNorth Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulationʼ, North Carolina University, 41.
Google Scholar