Ditching investor-state dispute settlement may come at quite a cost

 

Sir, John Kay is no doubt correct to conclude that excluding investment protection standards from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would make it “much easier” to sell the proposed deal to a sceptical European public (“Free trade should not put democracy in the dock”, February 4). But would this be the right thing to do?

While greater public engagement in trade policy making is welcome, too much of the recent European debate on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been driven by hearsay, superstition and myth. Professor Kay shows that even the most reasoned commentators can fall into this trap, casually depicting big — “predominantly American” — businesses as rapacious users of ISDS.

The facts tell a different story: ISDS cases remain relatively rare and almost 60 per cent of claims filed over the past five years have been made by European investors. The importance of fact-based policy making is emphasised by the global dimension to the TTIP talks. Estimates may vary about the economic value of a transatlantic investment pact, but it would be short-sighted to ignore the negative precedent that a weak or non-deal would set for future negotiations.

By contrast, a gold-standard agreement in TTIP could play a central role in fostering improved conditions for a much-needed expansion of global investment flows. Prof Kay would be well advised not to lose sight of this broader perspective: ditching ISDS from TTIP might be the easy thing to do, but it may come at quite a cost in the long run.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6bacb7de-ad5e-11e4-97c1-00144feab7de.html#axzz3RGjEaLgU