Brussels, 18/09/2015 (Agence Europe) - On the left of the political arena at the European Parliament, the Commission's proposal of 16 September (see EUROPE 11390) to create a special court for settling investment disputes in the future EU-US free trade agreement (TTIP), and to replace the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in any future trade agreement, is rejected by the far left and ecologists, and does not enjoy unanimity among the socialists.
Whilst the Greens/EFA Group speaks of a “smokescreen operation” (see EUROPE 11391), the GUE/NGL Group criticises an “attempt to deceive the public”. “They call it 'investment court system', but in substance it simply remains an ISDS tribunal. Arbitrators are now called judges, but to qualify for the job it is enough to be a 'jurist of recognised competence'”, deplores Helmut Scholz (Germany). “It is most regrettable that the Commission is ignoring citizens' voices, considering that 97% of respondents to the Commission's own consultation on ISDS clearly rejected ISDS”, he continues. “In the proposed new ISDS system, three arbitrators continue to decide based on the words of the TTIP agreement, and not based on the words of our constitutions, or values agreed in the United Nations conventions. An obscure 'services and investment committee' shall decide on whether a case is to be established and what constitutes 'fair and equitable treatment'”, Scholz adds. In his view, it is important to define the meaning of the word “investment”. “People hear of investment and think about a nice guy building a factory next door, creating jobs. But what the Commission proposes goes way beyond that (…) Concessions to search for, extract or exploit natural resources shall also be covered [by the Commission's proposal], probably much to the delight of the fracking industries [for shale gas]”, he says, before concluding: “The proposed new ISDS fails to recognise investor obligations. It does not provide an opportunity for citizens to sue an investor for polluting the environment, neglecting trade union rights, or destabilising a currency”.
Elsewhere, voices of dissent are spreading in the S&D Group, which nevertheless hailed the Commission's proposal. Marie Arena (Belgium) fears “cosmetic measures”. “The proposed changes are a step in the right direction. But we need to remain cautious because an arbitration mechanism for investors is, by its very nature, deeply biased. We need to check that the toxic aspects of the abandoned version do not come up again in this new version, in one form or other”, Arena warns. “An international arbitration mechanism goes against the sovereignty of states and limits their ability to fulfil their obligation to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. A mechanism solely in the service of foreign investors, which protects their rights but which does not impose any obligations on them, also goes against the rights of individuals and people recognised in the framework of international law. This is why I'm calling for the Commission to reflect alongside on setting up a binding instrument that obliges investors and multinationals to respect human rights and social and environmental standards”, she concludes.
The Commission's new proposal will be discussed at a debate in the Parliament's international trade committee on Monday 21 September. (Emmanuel Hagry)