Investor-State Dispute Mechanism Doesn't Impinge Sovereignty, Says USTR
The U.S. proposal for investor-state dispute settlement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations and other effective or pending trade agreements would strengthen arbitration procedures through enhancing safeguards and transparency, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
in a March 27 statement. The mechanism could not be abused to jeopardize countries’ financial stability, environmental protection efforts, or public health, said USTR, categorically dismissing allegations to that effect. “The United States wouldn’t negotiate away its right to regulate in the best interest of its citizens, and we don’t ask other countries to do so either,” said USTR. “U.S. trade agreements do not require countries to lower their levels of regulation. In fact, in our trade agreements, we require our partners to effectively enforce their environmental and labor laws and to take on new commitments to increase environmental and labor protections.” The Workers Uniting labor group said on March 26 TTIP should exclude the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, noting that Germany and France oppose the provision (see 14032630).