Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/125175
Authors: 
Klodt, Henning
Lang, Stefanie
Year of Publication: 
2015
Citation: 
[Journal:] Wirtschaftsdienst [ISSN:] 1613-978X [Publisher:] Springer [Place:] Heidelberg [Volume:] 95 [Year:] 2015 [Issue:] 7 [Pages:] 482-486
Abstract: 
Mit der öffentlichen Debatte um die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) ist der Investorenschutz auf der politischen Agenda weit nach oben gerückt. Strittig ist vor allem, ob solche Abkommen tatsächlich nötig sind, um das Vertrauen multinationaler Unternehmen in Regierungen und Gerichtsbarkeit der Gastländer zu stärken. Vielmehr scheinen Investoren diese Abkommen in zunehmendem Maße zu missbrauchen, indem sie über ein 'Treaty Shopping' sachlich unbegründete Schadensersatzforderungen durchsetzen.
Abstract (Translated): 
On account of the ongoing TTIP negotiations, the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) issue has gained high priority in the public debate. Many observers are concerned that private arbitration boards may be abused by multinational firms for pushing through unjustified and excessive compensation for 'unfair and inequitable treatment'. We explore a number of case studies which provide evidence on significant ISDS abuse - especially in the form of 'treaty shopping', i.e. relocating foreign subsidiaries to countries with favourable ISDS regimes. Our analysis suggests that private arbitration boards should be replaced by an International Investment Court, which must be established soon.
JEL: 
F53
F55
K33
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size
172.92 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.