Brussels wants to hear more on TTIP investor-state dispute clause

German protestors. May 6, Berlin. [ Mehr Demokratie/Flickr]

The European Commission decided yesterday (21 January) that it would be postponing negotiations on an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the context of the EU-US trade and investment partnership (TTIP), with a view to launching a public consultation.

“I know some people in Europe have genuine concerns about this part of the EU-US deal,” said EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, adding that the decision reflected the EU executive’s determination to secure the right balance between protecting European investment interests and upholding governments’ right to regulate in the public interest.

The TTIP negotiations launched last June included the so-called "investor-state" dispute clauses empowering EU and US-based corporations to lodge private legal cases directly against governments.

The European Commission's proposal initially would have enabled US companies investing in Europe to by-pass European courts and directly challenge governments at international tribunals, whenever they find that laws in the area of public health, environmental or social protection infringe their right to do business. EU companies investing abroad would have had the same rights in the United States.

"Governments must always be free to regulate so they can protect people and the environment. But they must also find the right balance and treat investors fairly, so they can attract investment," De Gucht said.

"International investment agreements like TTIP should ensure they do both. But some existing arrangements have caused problems in practice, allowing companies to exploit loopholes where the legal text has been vague," he added.

Trojan horse

Across the political spectrum, MEPs and stakeholders alike have welcomed the EU executive’s move, saying it was a step in the right direction.

“The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) is a massive Trojan horse, which could be used by multinational corporations to whittle away EU standards and regulations across a range of policies from the environment to food safety to social protection,” said MEP Yannick Jadot, the Greens’ trade spokesperson in the European Parliament.

“This announcement by the European Commission is an important development in the ongoing battle against the controversial EU-US trade negotiations. However, it is only a first step.”

In recent months, union and environmental groups called on the EU and United States to exclude ISDS. 

“For months consumer organisations and other civil society groups have voiced their concerns over investor-to-state dispute settlement. Calling a halt to this part of the negotiations is the right thing to do. More is needed. The public should be consulted on other aspects of TTIP too. A deal of this magnitude should always include as broad a range of civil society as possible,” said Johannes Kleis, a spokesperson for the European consumer organisation BEUC.

The next round of negotiations are scheduled for mid February in Washington, when tariff barriers will be discussed.

The next EU-US summit will be held in Brussels on 26 March 2014. This will be President Obama's first visit to Brussels and to the EU institutions.

The talks are expected to be suspended between mid-April and autumn 2014 because of the renewal of the European institutions.


The spokesman of the EPP Group in the international trade committee of the European Parliament, Daniel Caspary MEP, considered the announcement as the Commission’s will to better integrate the public into the TTIP negotiations.

“The announcement also provides a chance to make clear that many concerns are comprehensible but could be solved within the negotiation process.  Now all interested citizens, NGOs and interest groups are called upon to take part in the consultation, and reflect how to develop and implement agreements on the necessary protection of European investments abroad. This includes, in my perspective, provisions allowing lawmakers to continue taking meaningful decisions on rules, keeping intact ordinary legal procedures, and making more transparent international dispute settlement procedures."

Commenting on the announcement, Paul de Clerck from Friends of the Earth Europe, said: “This is a step in the right direction, and signals growing opposition to the investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism. The excessive rights granted by this mechanism, which would allow companies to sue governments if they see their profits affected by democratically agreed decisions, are both undemocratic and unnecessary.”

"If the Commission is serious about genuinely consulting the public, on these so far secretive talks, then business should play no part. It must not use business statements in favour of investor protection as an excuse to put corporate interests before public interests," he added.

  • 14 January 2014 : public presentation of the negotiations outcome in Brussels
  • February 2014 : TTIP negotiation round on tariff barriers
External links: 


Mike Parr's picture

The move by the EC with respect to the "Investor-state_dispute" mechanism is a good first step towards the destruction of the TTIP. By the way, Mr de Gucht, I have some special wholesale prices on hypocrisy (triggered by your comment "...some people in Europe..." gee just some?).

Calling a spade a spade, an "investor-state dispute settlement mechanism" in the context of the TTIP (and similar agreements such as NAFTA) can also be called an "investor protection agreement". This is not my phrase, but that of Noam Chomsky (Youtube: search terms Noam Chomsky, "Free markets" the reference and discussion is at the 58 minute mark in his talk - note the talk was gven in 1997 - yet his comments are highly pertinent today).

Investor protection agreements are designed to disintermediate governments and the people that sometimes elect them, from being able to implement legislation. Most EU member states already have processes to resolve company - state disputes - they are called "law courts" and for the most part can be considered neutral fora. This does not suit the neo-liberal thought collective (NTC: - see Mirowski - Never Let a Serious Crisis go to waste) which prefers fora under its control. Plenty of comment has been passed on existing investor-state-dispute mechanisms to show that they are exactly that - fora controlled by and for the benefit of business against the interests of citizens.

Quoting De Gucht: "Governments ...blah blah.... But they must also find the right balance and treat investors fairly, so they can attract investment,". OK De Gucht - (or your staff) give me one example in the EU where a company has been unable to get redress against a government through normal legal channels. I'd also draw de Gucht's attention to the popularity of the law courts in London as a neutral fora for commercial dispute resolution - which of course are open to the public. What de Gucht, elements in the EC and large |(US?) companies want is closed, biased "investor protection agreements" and processes.

Quoting again: "But some existing arrangements have caused problems in practice, allowing companies to exploit loopholes where the legal text has been vague" Really, such as? provide some examples - come on let's hear them instead of assertions (or would that be lies? you're not a liar are you de Gucht?)

Moving onwards & downwards, the NGOs and FOE are deluded (and need to grow a pair) if they think that the EC is "interested" in what citizens have to say - the EC and de Gucht ain't & never have been. The whole process is a charade & should be treated as such.

I call on all Euro citizens, to publicise this as an issue come the next Euro elections. Determine the position of the MEPs - if they do not oppose TTIP in its totality - find somebody that does & have them sign (preferably in blood - never trust politicos) a binding pledge that if elected as an MEP they will reject any TTIP in its totality. The NGOs have a role to play in this: they should support this and get organised. How about it FOE etc?

TTIP delenda est

Mike Parr's picture

Thanks Mr Jones - always useful to know who the enemy is. Certainly the BAB falls into the category:

TTIP delenda est.

Daye Tucker's picture

Thank goodness we citizens are not going to be rolled over into US style corporate slavery without a fight. Time to add strength to that fight. Get the news out there that it's not Fait Accompli yet, and stir up the petitions. write to MEPs in particular.