Andrew Rosindell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-05-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what provisions are in place to ensure that the jurisdiction of Investor State Dispute Settlement tribunal hearings remains restricted to its current mandate under the terms of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Anna Soubry

Investment protection provisions in trade and investment treaties such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) aim to protect international investors from discriminatory or unfair treatment by a state. Their investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions allow international investors to bring claims if they think the obligations set out in the treaty have been breached by the host state. As such, Governments cannot initiate claims against investors. Under the European Commission’s proposals for TTIP, in line with normal investment treaty practice, UK investors would be able to bring ISDS claims against the US Government.

The jurisdiction of any ISDS tribunal established in TTIP will be set out in the investment protection and ISDS provisions of the agreement. The aim of the European Commission’s proposals for investment protection provisions in TTIP is to clearly define the scope for ISDS claims and tribunal jurisdiction, including protecting the right of governments to regulate lawfully in the public interest. If an ISDS tribunal did exceed its jurisdiction in making an award, typically those elements of the resulting award would not be enforceable.