EU trade officials will today start analysing responses to a public consultation on investment protection and ISDS in TTIP, a new EU-US trade deal currently being negotiated. The survey closed yesterday, almost four months after its launch in March.
European citizens and interest groups replied in large numbers. The Commission will soon confirm:
- the precise number of responses received
- their origin by EU country
- the types of respondent who submitted them.
We will also look at the responses carefully over the next few months, before publishing a report on the results towards the end of 2014 and drawing up policy recommendations based on them.
Is there a middle ground here for ISDS? Some (many NGOs) want to want to get rid of ISDS completely; some (European industry) want the strongest possible protections; and the U.S. wants the U.S. model. Is there a sweet spot right in the middle that will be acceptable to everyone?
And speaking of ISDS, this is from incoming European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker:
Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes. The rule of law and the principle of equality before the law must also apply in this context.
This has the feel of ISDS skepticism, but what exactly does it mean? He won't accept that "the jurisdiction of [EU and member state] courts" is limited. But does that mean he thinks that EU and member state courts are the exclusive route for judicial challenges to EU and member state laws and regulations? Or does it mean that EU and member state laws and regulations can be challenged in ISDS, in parallel with the EU and member state court challenges, which maintain their "jurisdiction"? It sounds critical of ISDS, but perhaps he is leaving himself leeway to accept it in some form.