In the 2012 report Profiting from Injustice, jointly published by Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute, we boldly asserted that law firms, arbitrators and third-party funders have, over the past two decades, helped maintain an investor-biased arbitration system and have fuelled the rise in investor-state disputes.
Mondiaal Nieuws -Nederlandse bilaterale verdragen spelen een sleutelrol in de zaken die multinationals aanspannen tegen ontwikkelingslanden, wanneer ze menen last te hebben van nieuwe regelgeving. Meer dan 10 procent van alle bekende claims zijn gebaseerd op een Nederlands verdrag, en daarvan is driekwart ingediend door firma's die alleen met hun brievenbus in Nederland gevestigd zijn.
Seattle to Brussesls analysis: The European Commission’s note on “Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada free trade agreement ’’ is a lobby document, not an objective and complete presentation on the issue At the end of 2013 the European Commission produced a note presenting and explaining the “Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada free trade agreement” (CETA).
This briefing analyses leaked proposals for so-called investor-state dispute settlement under the proposed EU-US deal and reveals a determined lobby campaign from industry lobby groups and law firms to grant unprecedented rights to corporations to sue governments for legislation and regulations that interfere with their profits.
The case of Newmont Mining vs Indonesia is a powerful example of how investment agreements are used by companies to get exemptions from government regulations and legislation, undermining democracy and development.
Cecilia Olivet, Pietje Vervest, Giorgina Garibotto et al.
01 February 2013
This beginners' guide provides a critical perspective on EU’s trade and investment policies and the business interests they serve. TNI worked on the guide with a Europe-wide network of trade activists, belonging to the Seattle to Brussels network.
In March 2014 the European Commission received the negotiation mandate from the EU member States to start negotiating an Investment treaty with Myanmar. But what do BITS mean in practice? Is it in the best interest of the Myanmar public?
The EU's launch of negotiations for Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs) with four Arab countries in transition – Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia - looks set to entrench an economic model that was one of the root causes of the Arab Spring.
For fairer and more democratic societies, people need to claim control over the EU’s trade and investment policy processes. We need to change EU’s trade and investment policies and the way in which decisions are made.
Corporations in Western Europe are suing Central and Eastern European countries at international arbitration tribunals through a vast web of intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Yet while the European Commission has questioned the validity of these BITs, Netherlands, Germany, and the UK, oppose their termination.
The proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US will open the floodgate to multi-million Euro lawsuits from corporations challenging democratic policies to protect the environment and public health, argues a new briefing by Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute.
The secretive and lucrative world of international investment arbitration has enriched a small coterie of multi-billion dollar international firms, which actively promote and even help finance litigations against states and have fought fiercely to prevent changes to an unjust international investment regime.
Citizens and policy makers around the world are increasingly questioning the trade agreement system, especially the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) that enables foreign investors to bypass the legal system of host states and sue governments before private tribunals for any policy, democratically passed law, or judgment of a court that adversely affects them.
A clear and plain language guide to the EU's neoliberal investment regime, explaining both the social and environmental costs of prying open poor, vulnerable countries' economies, as well as outlining a number of ethical alternatives.