Investment Protection Under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Limited but Predictable?

Samuel Pape, Alice Zhou
{"title":"Investment Protection Under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Limited but Predictable?","authors":"Samuel Pape, Alice Zhou","doi":"10.1163/24689017_0601006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After ten months of intense negotiations, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was concluded on 24 December 2020. The TCA runs to 1,246 pages and covers what may be the broadest range of issues ever to be addressed within an international trade agreement. However, the tca’s limited investment protection provisions have been met with perplexity and expressions of disappointment among commentators. In particular, the limited set of substantive investment protections and the absence of an investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism have been viewed as something of a missed opportunity, particularly as the EU and the UK have agreed to more expansive investment chapters in recent trade agreements with third parties. Why did the UK and the EU ultimately limit the scope of investment protection and exclude ISDS under the TCA? This article examines this question by analysing the key features of the tca’s investment chapter and tracing the underlying investment policy dynamics, including the UK’s and the EU’s respective negotiating positions that led to the tca’s circumscribed investment chapter. This article also considers the significance and potential implications of the TCA for the UK’s and the EU’s respective investment policies going forward.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_0601006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After ten months of intense negotiations, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was concluded on 24 December 2020. The TCA runs to 1,246 pages and covers what may be the broadest range of issues ever to be addressed within an international trade agreement. However, the tca’s limited investment protection provisions have been met with perplexity and expressions of disappointment among commentators. In particular, the limited set of substantive investment protections and the absence of an investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism have been viewed as something of a missed opportunity, particularly as the EU and the UK have agreed to more expansive investment chapters in recent trade agreements with third parties. Why did the UK and the EU ultimately limit the scope of investment protection and exclude ISDS under the TCA? This article examines this question by analysing the key features of the tca’s investment chapter and tracing the underlying investment policy dynamics, including the UK’s and the EU’s respective negotiating positions that led to the tca’s circumscribed investment chapter. This article also considers the significance and potential implications of the TCA for the UK’s and the EU’s respective investment policies going forward.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟-英国贸易与合作协定下的投资保护:有限但可预测?
经过10个月的紧张谈判,欧盟-英国贸易与合作协定(TCA)于2020年12月24日缔结。《贸易与合作协定》长达1246页,涵盖的问题可能是国际贸易协定中涉及范围最广的。然而,评论人士对tca有限的投资保护条款感到困惑和失望。特别是,有限的实质性投资保护和投资者-国家争端解决机制(ISDS)的缺失被视为错失的机会,特别是在欧盟和英国在最近与第三方的贸易协定中同意了更广泛的投资章节。为什么英国和欧盟最终限制了投资保护的范围,并将ISDS排除在TCA之外?本文通过分析tca投资章节的主要特征和追踪潜在的投资政策动态,包括英国和欧盟各自的谈判立场,导致了tca限制投资章节,来研究这个问题。本文还考虑了TCA对英国和欧盟各自未来投资政策的重要性和潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Energy Charter Treaty and the Paris Agreement – Friends or Foes? – 7th EFILA Lecture (28 October 2021) The European Union’s Proposed Amendments to Article 10(1) of the ECT: Advancing or Undermining Its Ambitions for the Green Transition? Going Out of Business: Representing Insolvent Claimants Seeking Investment Treaty Protection in Arbitrations Brought against States (Winner of the Essay Competition 2022) Green Power K/S and SCE Solar Don Benito APS v Kingdom of Spain: How EU Law Allegedly Trumps International Investment Law Does the cjeu Misunderstand Investment Treaty Arbitration in Commission v Micula?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1