Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWitkowska, Janinaen
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-05T11:50:09Z
dc.date.available2018-03-05T11:50:09Z
dc.date.issued2017-09-19en
dc.identifier.issn1508-2008en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/24193
dc.description.abstractThe Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a controversial subject, but at the same time it is perceived to be the most comprehensive international agreement on free trade and investment protection. Among the topics that evoke criticism on the part of different social groups is the investor‑state dispute‑settlement (ISDS), as well as its legal consequences for the EU Member states. A less discussed issue is the potential implications of the agreement on the state of economic co‑operation between the European Union and the USA in the field of investment flows, with special reference to foreign direct investment (FDI). The aim of this paper is to present the discussion related to the ISDS and examine some of the economic, political and legal implications of TTIP provisions for FDI flows between the EU and the USA. The proposals of the European Commission to change the investment protection system might be treated as an attempt to make the system of arbitrage more transparent and convincing to societies, and safer for states. The effects of the TTIP agreement for FDI between both partners might be dependent on the scale of trade creation and diversion effects, and the mirror effects of investment creation and diversion under a free trade area.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegoen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComparative Economic Research;20en
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0en
dc.subjectTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)en
dc.subjectinvestor‑state dispute‑settlement (ISDS)en
dc.subjectforeign direct investment (FDI)en
dc.subjectUSAen
dc.subjectUEen
dc.titleImplications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) for Investment Flows Between the European Union and the USAen
dc.page.number25-39en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationPh.D., Full Professor at the University of Lodz, Institute of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, Lodz, Polanden
dc.referencesAGENDA of the 2204th meeting of the Commission, 14 March 2017, European Commission Secretariat General OJ(2017) 2204 Final.en
dc.referencesBishop D. (2015), Investor‑State Dispute Settlement Under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Have the Negotiations Run Aground?, ‘ICSID Review’, vol. 30, No. 1.en
dc.referencesBottini G. (2016), Using investor‑state dispute settlement to enforce investor obligations, ‘Columbia FDI Perspectives’ No. 173.en
dc.referencesBronckers M. (2015), Is Investor‑State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Superior to Litigation Before Domestic Courts? An EU View on Bilateral Trade Agreements, ‘Journal of International Economic Law’,, 18, doi: doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgv035, download from http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/atUniwersytetŁódzki April 19, 2016.en
dc.referencesChase P.H. (2015), TTIP, investor‑state dispute settlement and the rule of law, ‘European View’ 2015, 14:217-229, doi 10.1007/s12290-015-0377‑z.en
dc.referencesCzarny E., Folfas P. (2016), Unia Europejska i Stany Zjednoczone w globalnej produkcji i międzynarodowej współpracy gospodarczej a TTIP, [in:] E. Czarny, M. Słok‑Wódkowska eds. Partnerstwo Transatlantyckie. Wnioski dla Polski, PWE, Warszawa.en
dc.referencesDeutscher Richterbund (2016), Stellungnahme zur Errichtung eines Investitionsgerichts fur TTIPVorschlag der Europaischen Kommission vom 16.09. 2015, No 4, February http://www.drb.de/fileadmin/docs/Stellungnahmen/2016/DRB_160201_Stn_Nr_04_Europaeisches_Investitionsgericht.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2015), The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP explained, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/may/tradoc_152462.pdf, (accessed on 20.04.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2015a), Investment in TTIP and beyond‑ the path for reform. Concept paper http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF, (accessed on 22.04.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2015b), Commission proposes new Investment Court System for TTIP and other EU trade and investment negotiations, Brussels, 16 September 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_IP-15-5651_en.htm , (accessed on12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2015c), EU finalises proposal for investment protection and Court System for TTIP, Brussels, 12 November 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_IP-15-6059‑en.htm, (accessed on 12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2016a), Services and investment in the EU trade deals. Using ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ lists http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154427.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2016b), The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - State of Play, 27 April 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154477.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesEC (2016c), Report of the 15th Round of Negotiations for The Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership, October 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/october/tradoc_155027.pdf, (accessed on 7.02.2017).en
dc.referencesEC (2016d), A future multilateral investment court, European Commission - Fact Sheet, Brussels, 13 December 2016, MEMO/16/4350, http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_MEMO-16-4350_en.htm, (accessed on 7.02. 2017).en
dc.referencesEC(2016e), The Multilateral Investment Court project http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1608, (accessed on 9.02. 2017).en
dc.referencesEC (2016f), European Commission launches public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=161, (accessed on 9.02.2017).en
dc.referencesEC (2017), Questionnaire on options for a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=233, (accessed on 9.02. 2017).en
dc.referencesEurostat (2016), Foreign direct investment statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‑explained/index.php/Foreign_direct_investment_statistics, (accessed on 10.02.2017).en
dc.referencesGreenpeace (2016), From ISDS to ICS: A Leopard Can’t Change its Spots. Position Paper on the Commission Proposal for an Investment Court System in TTIP, Brussels, http://www.greenpeace.org/euunit/Global/euunit/reportsbriefings/2016/2016_02_11_Greenpeace%20Position%20Paper%20ICS_Final.pdf, (accessed on 12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesLorz R. A. (2014), Germany, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and investment‑dispute settlement: Observation on a paradox, ‘Columbia FDI Perspectives’ No. 132.en
dc.referencesMenkes J. (2016), Mechanizm rozstrzygania sporów inwestor - państwo i TTIP - polska perspektywa, [in:] E. Czarny, M. Słok‑Wódkowska (eds.), Partnerstwo Transatlantyckie. Wnioski dla Polski, PWE, Warszawa.en
dc.referencesOECD (2014), OECD International Direct Investment Statistics 2014, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/idis-2014en , (accessed on 12.05.2016).en
dc.referencesPardo R (2014), ISDS and TTIP - A Miracle Cure for a Systemic Challenge?, ‘Policy Brief’, European Policy Centre.en
dc.referencesPyka M. (2015), Investor‑to state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - not as unfeasible as it appears?, ‘Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne’, 11(1).en
dc.referencesUNCTAD (2015), World Investment Report 2015. Reforming International Investment Governance, New York and Geneva.en
dc.referencesUNCTAD (2016) World Investment Report 2016: Investor Nationality: Policy Challenge, New York and Geneva.en
dc.referencesU.S.‑EU Joint Report (2017) U.S.‑EU Joint Report on TTIP Progress to Date, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/january/tradoc_155242.pdf, (accessed on 9.02.2017).en
dc.referencesWatts J., (2016) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: An Overly “Ambitious” Attempt to Harmonize Divergent Philosophies on Acceptable Risks in Food Production Without Directly Addressing Areas of Disagreement, ʽNorth Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulationʼ, North Carolina University, 41.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailjanwit@uni.lodz.plen
dc.identifier.doi10.1515/cer-2017-0018en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.