CYIL 2015

TTIP AND ISDS: NOT IRRECONCILABLE ACRONYMS calling on EU decision-makers to stop the TTIP negotiations and to not ratify the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). 7 These circumstances are not helping to improve the prospects for the agreement. Where are the sources of such animosity towards a more ambitious than usual but still trade agreement? In the context of the TTIP there are numerous issues which cause concerns for stakeholders. Just to mention a few: the non-transparency of negotiations being conducted behind closed doors; lower food, environmental, labour standards; rolling back regulations in the financial sector; and generally the sacrificing of democratic rights for corporate interests. 8 One issue still draws more attention than the rest – investment protection and the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism – ISDS, which is now, according to Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, “the most toxic acronym in Europe”. 9 A united front involving political parties, trade unions, consumer organizations and various NGOs has merged in opposition against investment protection and particularly ISDS, and it effectively campaigns across the EU against its inclusion in the TTIP. Clearly, the ISDS mechanism has become the most controversial topic in the negotiations. It is threatening not only the prospect for the TTIP, but also the ratification of CETA. 10 The unbalance in public discourse remains unchanged even after efforts of business groups such as Business Europe 11 or the Federation of German Industries 12 to rebalance the debate around the trade initiative. Also, the EU Member States governments call for stronger defence of the TTIP. 13 Fortunately, the debate about the presence of investment protection and ISDS in the TTIP is not just driven by NGOs that often observe their ideological motives. It is also a subject of serious academic disputations and cost and benefits analyses. In 7 While the EU’s ongoing negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the United States have grabbed the headlines, little attention in Europe has been given to the similar agreements the EU has already completed with Canada and Singapore. 8 Friends of the Earth Europe, EU-US trade deal, see https://www.foeeurope.org/EU-US-trade-deal-in-depth. 9 POLITICO, Malmström to unveil investment dispute plan for TTIP, see http://www.politico.eu/ article/eu-malmstrom-unveils-ttip-investment-dispute-settlement-plan/. 10 Doak Bishop, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Have the Negotiations Run Around?, ICSID Review , Vol. 30, No. 1 (2015), p. 2. 11 Business Europe, Investor-State Dispute Settlement – A necessary mechanism to ensure investment protection, Position paper (2 May 2014), see http://www.businesseurope.eu/content/default. asp?PageID=568&DocID=32983. 12 Federation of German Industries, Background: Facts and Figures. International Investment Agreements and Investor-State Dispute Settlement, BDI-Document No. 0007 (29 April 2014), see http://www. bdi.eu/images_content/GlobalisierungMaerkteUndHandel/BDI_Facts_and_Figures_International_ Investment_Agreements.pdf. 13 In a letter dated 21 October 2014 ministers of fourteen EU Member States (Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom) to Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Trade, intervened in support of an investment chapter in the TTIP.

347