TPP Parties Need to Make Procedural, Substantive Reforms to ISDS Chapter, Says Rep. Levin
The U.S. and the 11 other Trans-Pacific Partnership trade delegations need to “reform” the TPP investor-state dispute mechanism to “ensure that governments preserve the ability to regulate in the public interest,” said House Ways and Means ranking member Sandy Levin in a March 20 blog post that explores the history of ISDS in U.S. investment treaties (here). U.S. ISDS provisions have changed significantly over past years to address public concerns, but the recent worldwide track record is still troubling, said Levin.
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.
“The number of disputes has proliferated in recent years, involving increasingly novel and costly challenges to public welfare and environmental regulations, and may have a chilling effect on government actions,” said Levin. “For example, Philip Morris recently sued Australia under a Hong Kong-Australia BIT, arguing that cigarette warning labels interfere with its trademarks and constitute an indirect expropriation of its investment.” Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb rejected the argument that the Philip Morris case is a bellweather for TPP during a recent interview with local media (see 1503180062). The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is readying to brief Congress on the ISDS language in TPP, following a recent briefing on TPP labor provisions, said Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis. (see 1503190001). “We were unable to get at the ISDS issue,” said Kind. “We’re going to have to reschedule that a little later.” USTR didn’t respond for comment.