Traduction de «Arbitrage investisseur-État » (Français → Anglais) :

However, the fact that the obligations are meaningful, the fact that there's access to investor-state arbitration, and the fact that it's supported as strongly as it is by the business community all lead us to believe that the stakeholders that this measure is intended to benefit think that there is considerable advantage to having the agreement.

It may be used to cover expenditure resulting from agreements concluded pursuant to Article 218 of the Treaty providing for investor-to- state dispute settlement or to replenish appropriations initially provided to cover the payment of an award or a settlement or costs arising from the arbitration.

This fixed level of compensation increases consumer protection, gives investors stronger protection and creates no risk of arbitrage between Member States.

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;

18. Stresses the added value of a coherent and integrated EU investment policy; believes that developing countries would benefit greatly from having the EU as main interlocutor on investment arrangements, rather than relying on multiple agreements with individual Member States, provided that the EU investment policy strikes the right balance between the objective of investor protection and host states’ development goals; considers it vital, therefore, to establish an appropriate deadline for the replacement of Member States’ bilateral treaties by EU-level agreements; takes the view that the EU investment policy should include strong provisions on transparency, especially in relation to arbitration ...[+++] rules, and should oblige investors to exhaust domestic remedies first before turning to international arbitration.