|Author (Person)||Dullien, Sebastian|
|Publisher||European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)|
|Content Type||Journal | Series | Blog, News|
In a policy brief on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the ECFR laid out a recommendation for a narrow TTIP that removes all tariffs and sets common standards in areas in which convergence can easily be achieved, but that leaves out contentious issues. Specifically, the European Commission should drop investor protection (or in technical terms, the provisions for investor-state dispute settlements, ISDS) from the negotiations.
Even before the publication of the brief, the authors experienced quite a lot of pushback on this recommendation. In particular, policymakers who see themselves as proponents of free trade felt that our proposal was something like treason to the case of transatlantic trade liberalisation. Many comments defended the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP.
The constraints of space prevented the authors from going into greater depth on the ISDS issue in the original policy brief, so this post is intended to explain the reasoning in detail.
|Countries / Regions||Europe, United States|