The provisions of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the major trade agreement between the EU and the US received serious criticism from the public, some NGOs and even some scholars. Disputes surrounding many of its special provisions got highly emotional, with extreme commentaries in the media. There is a high chance the conclusion of the deal will be blocked because of public opposition. This article tries to analyse four of the most important questions, namely the transparency of negotiations, the issue of investor-state dispute settlement, and the agreement’s effects on environment-sustainable development and regulatory issues/consumer standards. Based on the analysis, it concludes that even though TTIP may contain some serious pitfalls, there is a high chance it would not lead to the devastating results as is regularly portrayed, and most of the problematic points could be settled relatively easily.
You can access the article here or by clicking of the image above.
“Award Name and Date: Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (PCA Case No. 2012-12) Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015
Case Report by: Marina Kofman** and Erika Williams*** Edited by Ignacio Torterola
Award Name and Date: Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (PCA Case No. 2012-12) Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015 Case Report by: Marina Kofman** and Erika Williams*** Edited by Ignacio Torterola Summary: Claimant brought a claim against Respondent under the bilateral investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia in respect of Respondent’s introduction of legislation mandating the plain packaging of tobacco products. Claimant undertook a restructure in 2011 whilst Respondent was considering the introduction of plain packaging measures. Following the restructure, Claimant became the sole shareholder of the Australian entities which were a part of the global group of companies. The Tribunal found that Claimant’s restructure was for the principal, if not the sole, purpose of gaining protection under the Treaty. The Tribunal held that the claims were inadmissible and it was precluded from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute.”