Protesters in
London demonstrate against one the largest trade
deals ever
contemplated, TTIP, now being negotiated in Brussels.
TTIP: French
Lawmakers Reject 'Non-State' Dispute Resolution (Temoignages, Reunion, France)
"The
currently proposed mechanism is extremely dangerous. American companies could
attack France because it has banned genetically modified organisms, or declared
a moratorium on shale gas fracking, or banned BPA (Biphenyl A, a carbon-based synthetic
compound used in a variety of common consumer goods)." –
European Parliament Deputy YannickJadot
Senators on February 3 adopted unanimously a draft
resolution on the conflict resolution mechanism between the state
and foreign investors foreseen by the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and
Trade Agreement (CETA).
The two transatlantic agreements, one with the United States
and the other with Canada, provide for a legal mechanism for settling disputes
between companies and states. Thus, companies that consider a decision taken by
a state to be prejudicial to them may file a complaint against that state before a
non-state tribunal.
A much contested
provision
This provision is much-criticized by elected officials and
community groups. According to the Stop TTIP/CETA Collective, "this arbitration authority would
have the power to strike down legislation solely on the basis that it
constitutes an infringement on free trade, but also to collect fines
directly state treasuries."
The Collective states that the mechanism "constitutes
an intolerable attack on the sovereignty of the people and democracy." Confronted with an arbitration mechanism presenting so many
"inherent dangers," Senator Michel Billout
(CRC Group- communist) and several of his colleagues,
including Senator Paul Vergès, proposed a European
resolution for the settlement of disputes between investors and states for the
draft commercial agreements between the European Union, Canada and the United
States.
The plan, adopted unanimously, proposes that the government
contemplate, with the United States, an inter-state system for settling
investor-state disputes under TTIP, which is now being negotiated, but also to
guarantee the unlimited legal right of states to regulate.
The text also seeks to alter the arbitration process
to ensure the full transparency of disputes, publication of actions taken, the
independence and impartiality of arbitrators and the establishment of a
mechanism of appeal before an independent tribunal.
Finally, senators invited the government to consider
recourse to an inter-state dispute settlement mechanism with Canada regarding
investments.
Michel Billoud, author of the
resolution, explained on the Senate's public information site, that "in
the event of health, social and environmental decisions, the state risks being
sanctioned" which to him "seems relatively unsupportable." For Yannick Jadot, a European
Parliament Green Party Deputy, this mechanism is "extremely
dangerous."
Dangerous because if the agreement between the European
Union and the United States comes into force, "American companies could
attack France because it has banned genetically modified organisms, or declared
a moratorium on shale gas fracking, or banned BPA (Biphenyl A, a carbon-based synthetic compound
used in a variety of common consumer goods)," Jadot
indicated.
For his part, Senator André Reichardt of the center-right UMP and
Vice Chairman of the Senate European Affairs Committee asserted that "the
risk is that this type of mediation is to the detriment of states and that they
could be required to pay astronomical sums to foreign investors."
For example, European companies have sued Egypt to prevent
it from increasing the minimum wage and sued Peru for limit toxic emissions.
Tobacco giant Philip Morris sued Australia and Uruguay before a special
tribunal following anti-tobacco legislation judged too restrictive.
Improve such
provisions or abolish them
Faced with such dangers, senators are divided between the
total abolition of non-state arbitration or improving the provisions through
guarantees of transparency, guaranteeing the impartiality of arbitrators and
establishing an appeals tribunal. After all, the arbitration system will become
"part of the legal framework of our country," explained Senator
Michel Billout. Billout
proposes "a form of state-to-state arbitration like that at the heart of
the World Trade Organization," or a "return to national courts with
an international appeal mechanism."
European Deputy YannickJadot wants "pure and simple" abolition of
non-state arbitration. "In principle, one needn't improve a bad
system," he declared, because "we have sufficiently developed judicial
systems to deal with trade disputes." He denounced the existence of
"private jurisdictions" to arbitrate such disputes.
For him it is a question of exceptional justice that
"supersedes the public courts" and in which the regulation of
conflicts of interest "is to the detriment of the public interest."
The Green Party senator said that the current draft was "an unacceptable
transfer of democratic sovereignty from the people to multinational
companies." For his part, Secretary of State for Foreign Trade Matthias Fekl wants to reopen negotiations
on the agreement between the E.U. and Canada which were last taken up in
September, 2014.
