Traduction de «Arbitrage entre investisseurs et États » (Français → Anglais) :

This means the convention will make it faster and easier to improve transparency of investor-state arbitration than a one-by-one renegotiation of the existing investment treaties.

The experience with the over 600 investor-state arbitrations under investment treaties to date globally shows that the fair and equitable treatment provision is the most frequently and the most successfully used by investors under the investor-to-state process.

9. Notes with concern the growing number of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) cases filed under International Investment Agreements (IIAs) whereby investors have challenged core public policies, claiming that these policies have negatively affected their business prospects; points out, in this context, that the Unctad World Investment Report (2012) indicates that IIAs are becoming increasingly controversial and politically sensitive, primarily owing to the spread of IIA-based investor-state arbitrations which provoke growing discontent (e.g. Australia’s trade policy statement announcing that it would stop including ISDS clauses i ...[+++]n its future IIAs) and which reflect, inter alia , deficiencies in the system (e.g. the wide scope of provisions such as expropriation, concerns regarding the qualification of arbitrators, lack of transparency and high costs of the proceedings, and the relationship between ISDS and state-state proceedings); insists therefore that any future European investment agreements must ensure that international investor-state dispute settlements do not undermine the ability of states to legislate in favour of the public interest;

9. Notes with concern the growing number of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) cases filed under International Investment Agreements (IIAs) whereby investors have challenged core public policies, claiming that these policies have negatively affected their business prospects; points out, in this context, that the UNCTAD World Investment Report (2012) indicates that IIAs are becoming increasingly controversial and politically sensitive, primarily owing to the spread of IIA-based investor-state arbitrations which provoke growing discontent (e.g. Australia’s trade policy statement announcing that it would stop including ISDS clauses i ...[+++]n its future IIAs) and which reflect, inter alia, deficiencies in the system (e.g. the wide scope of provisions such as expropriation, concerns regarding the qualification of arbitrators, lack of transparency and high costs of the proceedings, and the relationship between ISDS and state-state proceedings); insists therefore that any future European investment agreements must ensure that international investor-state dispute settlements do not undermine the ability of states to legislate in favour of the public interest;

(vii) taking into account the fact that the US and EU jurisdictions are not at risk of political interference in the judiciary or of denying justice to foreign investors, an investor-state dispute settlement, based on private arbitration, may undermine the right to regulate in the public interest of the European Union and of the Member States’ national ...[+++], regional and local authorities, in particular with regard to social and environmental policies, and would therefore not respect the constitutional framework of the EU; to propose a permanent solution for resolving disputes between investors and states, where potential cases are treated transparently by professional judges in public trials subsequent to which at least one appeal may be lodged;

(xviii) to ensure that agreement on any dispute settlement mechanism regarding investment protection must take into account the results of the public consultation on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), be fully transparent and democratically accountable, explicitly state the Member States’ right to regulate and under no circumstances restrict or hinder legislators from passing and enforcing laws both in the area of employment and in the area of s ...[+++]ocial policy for their countries; a state-to-state dispute settlement system between the EU and the US – both of which have fully functional legal systems and a sufficient level of investment protection to guarantee legal security – is another appropriate tool for addressing investment disputes; the inclusion of any form of private arbitration courts in TTIP must be ruled out;