SOLIDAR: The European Parliament wants a different ISDS
This week the European Parliament voted (finally) on a report on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that said no to the current and highly controversial Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The adopted text includes in one sentence “to replace the ISDS-system” and “with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states”. This new system should “not undermine public policy objectives” as we have seen in several controversial ISDS cases: attempts by Vattenfall to reverse Germany’s decision to shut down its nuclear power plants, Lone Pine attacking Québec’s fracking ban, oil and gas giant Chevron evading compliance with its legal obligation to clean up the health and environmental damages resulting from its operations in Ecuador, and Philip Morris challenging tobacco regulations in Australia and Uruguay.
Progress has also been made regarding guarantees for transparent procedures by independent judges and an appellate mechanism. However, the principle that companies will be able to sue states outside of domestic legal systems prevails in the proposal. Hence, the concerns expressed by SOLIDAR last week, remain at the forefront of our thoughts. Moreover, SOLIDAR regrets that the political debate in the Parliament has taken away attention from other pressing matters in the transatlantic partnership agreement discussions: the possible implications – through the regulatory harmonisation drive – for Public Procurement, Labour Standards and Social Economy, as SOLIDAR has pointed out in the briefing paper “TTIP: Our crown jewels for sale”. Nor has a clear “demand” been formulated with the TTIP-debate for the European Commission to demystify its position regarding public.
