Most modern free trade agreements (FTAs’) include chapters on a variety of topics such as investment, digital trade, labour, gender, environment and small-medium enterprises. These new issues are often addressed in FTAs’ as there is a lack of development of multilateral rules on these areas at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Further, many of these aspects are non-trade issuesviz. environment, labour, competition policy, and investment. These areas are contentious and often face opposition from the Global South and are frequently excluded from the scope of dispute settlement. Against this background, this article examines the trends with respect to the application of the dispute settlement across recent FTAs’ concluded by certain developed countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK). This article examines recent FTAs’ and categorizes its chapters as follows: (1) Chapters always subject to dispute settlement, (2) Chapters not subjected to dispute settlement and (3) Chapters that have inconsistent recourse to dispute settlement. Accordingly, the article provides a cross country assessment of the FTA chapters with dispute settlement provisions and the rationale behind such divergent practices. FTA, developed, non-trade, dispute settlement, sustainable trade, USMCA, gender, environment, labour, multilateralism.
{"title":"Application of Dispute Settlement in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs’): A Cross Country Analysis of Modern FTAs’","authors":"Ronjini Ray, Rishabha Meena","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022044","url":null,"abstract":"Most modern free trade agreements (FTAs’) include chapters on a variety of topics such as investment, digital trade, labour, gender, environment and small-medium enterprises. These new issues are often addressed in FTAs’ as there is a lack of development of multilateral rules on these areas at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Further, many of these aspects are non-trade issuesviz. environment, labour, competition policy, and investment. These areas are contentious and often face opposition from the Global South and are frequently excluded from the scope of dispute settlement. Against this background, this article examines the trends with respect to the application of the dispute settlement across recent FTAs’ concluded by certain developed countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK). This article examines recent FTAs’ and categorizes its chapters as follows: (1) Chapters always subject to dispute settlement, (2) Chapters not subjected to dispute settlement and (3) Chapters that have inconsistent recourse to dispute settlement. Accordingly, the article provides a cross country assessment of the FTA chapters with dispute settlement provisions and the rationale behind such divergent practices.\u0000FTA, developed, non-trade, dispute settlement, sustainable trade, USMCA, gender, environment, labour, multilateralism.","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48065506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union (EU) is the biggest source of outbound investment in the world and China is one of the top recipients of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is a unique international investment agreement that reflects the evolving economic relations of the EU and China and their strategic partnership. It also serves as one of the latest examples of the ever-evolving legal approach of the EU concerning international investment, particularly the dispute settlement mechanism in the CAI. This is why CAI might hold lessons for India, which also has a complex experience with its international investment agreements (IIAs), particularly the dispute settlement. Against this background, this article critically examines the dispute settlement provision of the CAI, its implications and lessons for India in the wake of renegotiation of the India-EU Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA). dispute settlement, international economic law, international investment agreements, European Union-China relations, Indian Model BIT, trade and investment law
{"title":"EU-China Agreement on Investment: Lessons for India from the Sino-European Model","authors":"Apoorva Singh Vishnoi, Amandeep Kaur Bajwa","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022047","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) is the biggest source of outbound investment in the world and China is one of the top recipients of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is a unique international investment agreement that reflects the evolving economic relations of the EU and China and their strategic partnership. It also serves as one of the latest examples of the ever-evolving legal approach of the EU concerning international investment, particularly the dispute settlement mechanism in the CAI. This is why CAI might hold lessons for India, which also has a complex experience with its international investment agreements (IIAs), particularly the dispute settlement. Against this background, this article critically examines the dispute settlement provision of the CAI, its implications and lessons for India in the wake of renegotiation of the India-EU Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA).\u0000dispute settlement, international economic law, international investment agreements, European Union-China relations, Indian Model BIT, trade and investment law","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44075140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
From being widely regarded as a template for other international dispute adjudication mechanisms, the Dispute Settlement System (DSS) of the WTO is now going through an existential crisis, specifically, though not exclusively, due to the deadlock on the Appellate Body of the WTO. The United States continues to block a decision to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body and there is little traction on the issue of DSS reform. Against this background, the author seeks to highlight the problems with the legislative branch of the WTO. The article argues that a reform of the DSS would only be sustainable if substantive issues in WTO law are addressed. In this connection, the article discusses specific aspects concerning trade remedy disputes which constitute the bulk of the disputes brought before the DSS. DSS, trilateral statement, subsidies, trade remedies, Walker Principles, MPIA, RTA, anti-dumping, substantive changes, zeroing, non-discrimination.
{"title":"The WTO’s Dispute Settlement System: Pathways for Reform","authors":"Ujal Singh Bhatia","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022037","url":null,"abstract":"From being widely regarded as a template for other international dispute adjudication mechanisms, the Dispute Settlement System (DSS) of the WTO is now going through an existential crisis, specifically, though not exclusively, due to the deadlock on the Appellate Body of the WTO. The United States continues to block a decision to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body and there is little traction on the issue of DSS reform. Against this background, the author seeks to highlight the problems with the legislative branch of the WTO. The article argues that a reform of the DSS would only be sustainable if substantive issues in WTO law are addressed. In this connection, the article discusses specific aspects concerning trade remedy disputes which constitute the bulk of the disputes brought before the DSS.\u0000DSS, trilateral statement, subsidies, trade remedies, Walker Principles, MPIA, RTA, anti-dumping, substantive changes, zeroing, non-discrimination.","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42015513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the conclusion of North African Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, an increasing number of Foreign Trade Agreements (FTAs) have included labour provisions along with specific dispute settlement mechanisms for these provisions. This article analyses how labour provisions have been included in FTAs’ since the early 1990s and critically accesses their suitability and effectiveness in terms of domestic labour reform and trade-related labour dispute settlement. It concludes by evaluating the case for the inclusion of labour provisions in FTAs’ and argues in favour of tailor-made rules suited to the precise reality of countries’ labour markets and regulatory environment. FTAs, labour provisions, sustainable development, ILO, globalization, CPTPP, NAFTA, rule of law, European Union FTAs, dispute settlement
{"title":"Settling Trade Related Labour Disputes: FTAs’ Pathways for Greater Social Justice in Globalization","authors":"L. Choukroune","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022041","url":null,"abstract":"Since the conclusion of North African Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, an increasing number of Foreign Trade Agreements (FTAs) have included labour provisions along with specific dispute settlement mechanisms for these provisions. This article analyses how labour provisions have been included in FTAs’ since the early 1990s and critically accesses their suitability and effectiveness in terms of domestic labour reform and trade-related labour dispute settlement. It concludes by evaluating the case for the inclusion of labour provisions in FTAs’ and argues in favour of tailor-made rules suited to the precise reality of countries’ labour markets and regulatory environment.\u0000FTAs, labour provisions, sustainable development, ILO, globalization, CPTPP, NAFTA, rule of law, European Union FTAs, dispute settlement","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44578769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The virtues of transparency and confidentiality in international judicial processes are often debated, including in relation to investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The extent of transparency in an ISDS proceeding may vary based on the applicable arbitration rules and the text of the international investment treaties under which the dispute arises. In this context, this article studies the practice of States reflected in select multiparty agreements. The sample of agreements considered, by virtue of the large number of participating countries, significance of trade and investment flows between participants, or both, may be considered representative of global trends or the lack thereof. The article also discusses how the transparency and confidentiality provisions in such agreements interact with the applicable arbitration rules and the net effect on transparency in ISDS. ISDS, transparency, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, public access to documents, open hearings, third parties, publication of orders, confidentiality.
{"title":"Transparency in ISDS: A Study Based on Multi-party Agreements","authors":"Smrithi Bhaskar, V. Choudhary","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022048","url":null,"abstract":"The virtues of transparency and confidentiality in international judicial processes are often debated, including in relation to investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The extent of transparency in an ISDS proceeding may vary based on the applicable arbitration rules and the text of the international investment treaties under which the dispute arises. In this context, this article studies the practice of States reflected in select multiparty agreements. The sample of agreements considered, by virtue of the large number of participating countries, significance of trade and investment flows between participants, or both, may be considered representative of global trends or the lack thereof. The article also discusses how the transparency and confidentiality provisions in such agreements interact with the applicable arbitration rules and the net effect on transparency in ISDS.\u0000ISDS, transparency, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, public access to documents, open hearings, third parties, publication of orders, confidentiality.","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49282263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union has enacted revisions to its previous Enforcement Regulation. This overview will describe some of the main changes introduced by the amendments and their possible effects on trade disputes between the EU and its opposing party. The Revised Enforcement Regulation has filled some lacuna in the aftermath of the decapitation of the Appellate Body and has broadened the scope of the previous Enforcement Regulation. Areas such as services and intellectual property rights have now come into the Regulation’s ambit. The Revised Enforcement Regulation is a part of the EU’s ‘Carrot and Stick’ strategy, which seeks to promote the use of the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) rather than parties escaping their responsibilities in the aftermath of a Panel report by appealing into ‘the void’. The Regulation has also expanded towards bilateral and regional trade agreements, including where provisions of Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) are at stake. This overview will also briefly discuss the compatibility of the Revised Regulation with the EU’s World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. The fact that other Members may be incentivized to join a rational and alternative means of dispute resolution is a successful outcome in itself. Whether the Revised Enforcement Regulation will ever be used is another question altogether. The lesser need for its use may actually signify the success of its existence. EU, Trade, Revised Enforcement Regulation, Disputes, WTO, MPIA, Regulation 2021/167, Appellate Body, Panel, Article 25 DSU, Implementation And Retaliation, Suspension of Concessions, International Law, Bilateral Trade Agreements, TSD
{"title":"The Revised Enforcement Regulation (No 2021/167) and Some Possible Effects on EU Trade Disputes","authors":"F. Graafsma","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022040","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union has enacted revisions to its previous Enforcement Regulation. This overview will describe some of the main changes introduced by the amendments and their possible effects on trade disputes between the EU and its opposing party.\u0000The Revised Enforcement Regulation has filled some lacuna in the aftermath of the decapitation of the Appellate Body and has broadened the scope of the previous Enforcement Regulation. Areas such as services and intellectual property rights have now come into the Regulation’s ambit. The Revised Enforcement Regulation is a part of the EU’s ‘Carrot and Stick’ strategy, which seeks to promote the use of the Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) rather than parties escaping their responsibilities in the aftermath of a Panel report by appealing into ‘the void’. The Regulation has also expanded towards bilateral and regional trade agreements, including where provisions of Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) are at stake.\u0000This overview will also briefly discuss the compatibility of the Revised Regulation with the EU’s World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. The fact that other Members may be incentivized to join a rational and alternative means of dispute resolution is a successful outcome in itself. Whether the Revised Enforcement Regulation will ever be used is another question altogether. The lesser need for its use may actually signify the success of its existence.\u0000EU, Trade, Revised Enforcement Regulation, Disputes, WTO, MPIA, Regulation 2021/167, Appellate Body, Panel, Article 25 DSU, Implementation And Retaliation, Suspension of Concessions, International Law, Bilateral Trade Agreements, TSD","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45673963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
India is no stranger to free trade agreements (FTAs), having notified seventeen of them as ‘in force’ to the WTO. In the last six months, India has concluded two new FTAs and is also actively engaged in the process of negotiating major ones with its key trading partners such as the UK, EU and Canada. With the WTO’s Appellate Body still non-functional, the spotlight is now on the dispute settlement mechanisms under the FTAs and their potential to be a viable alternative to the multilateral mechanism. Hence, an analysis of the select practices in the existing Indian FTAs is not just timely but also critical. This short article attempts to evaluate five specific elements pertaining to dispute settlement in Indian FTAs, namely the scope, the choice of forum, the structure of the dispute resolution mechanism, the process of the appointment of arbitrators/panellists and the case of non-implementation/retaliation. Through this examination, the article attempts to identify and propose specific elements for any future dispute settlement framework in India’s upcoming FTAs. dispute settlement mechanism, Indian FTAs, WTO, free trade agreements, choice of forum, appointment of arbitrators, arbitration, negotiations, panel
{"title":"Dispute Settlement in Indian FTAs’: Shaping the Future with Lessons from the Past","authors":"Shailja Singh","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022042","url":null,"abstract":"India is no stranger to free trade agreements (FTAs), having notified seventeen of them as ‘in force’ to the WTO. In the last six months, India has concluded two new FTAs and is also actively engaged in the process of negotiating major ones with its key trading partners such as the UK, EU and Canada. With the WTO’s Appellate Body still non-functional, the spotlight is now on the dispute settlement mechanisms under the FTAs and their potential to be a viable alternative to the multilateral mechanism. Hence, an analysis of the select practices in the existing Indian FTAs is not just timely but also critical. This short article attempts to evaluate five specific elements pertaining to dispute settlement in Indian FTAs, namely the scope, the choice of forum, the structure of the dispute resolution mechanism, the process of the appointment of arbitrators/panellists and the case of non-implementation/retaliation. Through this examination, the article attempts to identify and propose specific elements for any future dispute settlement framework in India’s upcoming FTAs.\u0000dispute settlement mechanism, Indian FTAs, WTO, free trade agreements, choice of forum, appointment of arbitrators, arbitration, negotiations, panel","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43985005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) contains a distinctive procedure under which anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations by national agencies can be reviewed by an ad hoc binational panel established under the treaty as an alternative to domestic court review. Binational panel review was first adopted in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (Canada-US FTA) to respond to Canada’s concern that the administration of the US anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws by the US agencies was biased in favour of the US domestic industries and the review of agency determinations by the US courts was inadequate to address that bias. Continuing Canadian concerns, shared by Mexico, resulted in binational panel review being included in the USMCA, even though the US had sought to eliminate it. Compared to US judicial review, binational panels under the Canada-US FTA and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have resulted in more frequent remands of the US agency determinations often leading to lower (or even zero) duties in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. As well, the prospect of rigorous panel review has discouraged the filing of anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases, the commencement of anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, and the imposition of duties in relation to imports from Canada and Mexico. Adopting binational panel review in other treaty contexts would be most attractive where significant concerns about domestic agencies comparable to Canada’s are present and national anti-dumping and countervailing duty regimes in participating countries have similar structures and procedures for judicial review. anti-dumping, countervailing duty, trade remedies, free trade, North America, dispute settlement
{"title":"Binational Panel Review of Trade Remedies Determinations: Prospects for Exporting the USMCA’s Unique Procedure","authors":"J. Vanduzer","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022038","url":null,"abstract":"The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) contains a distinctive procedure under which anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations by national agencies can be reviewed by an ad hoc binational panel established under the treaty as an alternative to domestic court review. Binational panel review was first adopted in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (Canada-US FTA) to respond to Canada’s concern that the administration of the US anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws by the US agencies was biased in favour of the US domestic industries and the review of agency determinations by the US courts was inadequate to address that bias. Continuing Canadian concerns, shared by Mexico, resulted in binational panel review being included in the USMCA, even though the US had sought to eliminate it. Compared to US judicial review, binational panels under the Canada-US FTA and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have resulted in more frequent remands of the US agency determinations often leading to lower (or even zero) duties in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. As well, the prospect of rigorous panel review has discouraged the filing of anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases, the commencement of anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, and the imposition of duties in relation to imports from Canada and Mexico. Adopting binational panel review in other treaty contexts would be most attractive where significant concerns about domestic agencies comparable to Canada’s are present and national anti-dumping and countervailing duty regimes in participating countries have similar structures and procedures for judicial review.\u0000anti-dumping, countervailing duty, trade remedies, free trade, North America, dispute settlement","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42854790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism is going through a churning. Several countries, developed and developing, have started contesting the ISDS regime. This is reflected in the treaty practice of these countries. This article studies some of the recently signed free trade agreements (FTAs’) that contain an investment chapter to find out if there are broad discernible trends in the treaty practice of countries on ISDS reflected in these FTAs’. The article argues that there are three broad trends that one can decipher. First, some FTAs’ do not contain an ISDS provision. Second, some contain a limited ISDS provision. Third, the FTAs’ signed by the European Union shows a departure from the traditional ISDS mechanism toward an investor court system to settle international investment law disputes. These trends in FTAs’ on ISDS are part of the global practice that is not reposing the similar faith in ISDS as was the case in the last few decades. ISDS, FTAs’, investment treaties, RCEP, CPTPP, investor-State dispute settlement
{"title":"Emerging Trends in Investor-State Dispute Settlement in New Free Trade Agreements","authors":"Prabhash Ranjan","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022046","url":null,"abstract":"The Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism is going through a churning. Several countries, developed and developing, have started contesting the ISDS regime. This is reflected in the treaty practice of these countries. This article studies some of the recently signed free trade agreements (FTAs’) that contain an investment chapter to find out if there are broad discernible trends in the treaty practice of countries on ISDS reflected in these FTAs’. The article argues that there are three broad trends that one can decipher. First, some FTAs’ do not contain an ISDS provision. Second, some contain a limited ISDS provision. Third, the FTAs’ signed by the European Union shows a departure from the traditional ISDS mechanism toward an investor court system to settle international investment law disputes. These trends in FTAs’ on ISDS are part of the global practice that is not reposing the similar faith in ISDS as was the case in the last few decades.\u0000ISDS, FTAs’, investment treaties, RCEP, CPTPP, investor-State dispute settlement","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45792846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Accelerated by the Covid-19 crisis and based on harmonization efforts of the European Union, a new federal law on the control of foreign direct investments (Investment Control Act – InvKG) entered into force in Austria on 25 July 2020. The Investment Control Act aims at the comprehensive and EU-wide formalized control of foreign investments from non-EU countries into Austrian companies that are of strategic importance for Austria due to their activities in areas that are indispensable for security or public order in Austria. The following article sets out the core provisions of the Investment Control Act and provides an initial review of the first experiences in Austrian practice. It ends with an outlook on the impact of the Investment Control Act on M&A transactions in Austria.
{"title":"Austria’s new Foreign Direct Investment Law: Review and Outlook","authors":"Martin Wolfgang Zankl","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022032","url":null,"abstract":"Accelerated by the Covid-19 crisis and based on harmonization efforts of the European Union, a new federal law on the control of foreign direct investments (Investment Control Act – InvKG) entered into force in Austria on 25 July 2020. The Investment Control Act aims at the comprehensive and EU-wide formalized control of foreign investments from non-EU countries into Austrian companies that are of strategic importance for Austria due to their activities in areas that are indispensable for security or public order in Austria. The following article sets out the core provisions of the Investment Control Act and provides an initial review of the first experiences in Austrian practice. It ends with an outlook on the impact of the Investment Control Act on M&A transactions in Austria.","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48204685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：