Traduction de «arbitrage état-investisseur » (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 in its future IIAs) and which reflect, inter alia , deficiencies in the system (e.g. the wide scope of pro ...[+++]visions 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 in its future IIAs) and which reflect, inter alia, deficiencies in the system (e.g. the wide scope of prov ...[+++]isions 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 t ...[+++]ransparently by professional judges in public trials subsequent to which at least one appeal may be lodged;

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.