Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Klodt, Henning
Klein, Martin
Bungenberg, Marc
Felbermayr, Gabriel
Schick, Gerhard
Year of Publication: 
[Journal:] Wirtschaftsdienst [ISSN:] 1613-978X [Publisher:] Springer [Place:] Heidelberg [Volume:] 94 [Year:] 2014 [Issue:] 7 [Pages:] 459-478
Einer der wesentlichen Streitpunkte zwischen den USA und der EU bei der Aushandlung des Transatlantischen Freihandelsabkommens sind die Regelungen zum Investitionsschutz. Dies soll eigentlich Investoren davor schützen, durch veränderte rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen Verluste zu erleiden. Es zielt aber auf die Wirtschaftsverfassung von Nationalstaaten, denn die Profitabilität der Investitionen ist vor allem durch Änderungen des Arbeits-, Verbraucher- und Umweltschutzes betroffen. Sollte es hier zu Klagen kommen, könnte dies die politische Souveränität von Staaten gefährden.
Abstract (Translated): 
Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) have become highly controversial. The authors review the evidence and discuss the pros and cons of BITs and other investment agreements. Many observers are concerned that Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) regulations on investment protection could be abused by international corporations to obtain unjustified compensation from EU member states. These concerns are to some extent legitimate and should be considered more seriously in the EU negotiation strategy. International investment agreements (IIA) are necessary when host countries of FDI do not have reliable and independent judicial systems. To avoid abuse and to account for the increasing role of global production chains, agreements require more precise definitions, and ISDS needs to be more transparent and independent. With the EU developing its own new approach independently (and differently) from the one taken in the past by its member states, the current negotiations of 'mega-regionals', as well as the first standalone EU IIA with China, offer the unique possibility to answer current critique around international investment law. Is there, in the current documents, an IIA2.0 that strengthens the right to regulate and holds up high protection standards for investors? The exclusion of ISDS from TTIP negotiations risks missing a unique chance to improve the current less than perfect international investment regime.
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 

Files in This Item:
372.66 kB

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