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
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
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).