CETA Isn't Dead, But Its Corporate Sovereignty Chapter Is Still A Huge, Unresolved Problem

from the and-let's-not-mention-TTIP dept

It’s been a while since we last wrote about CETA, the trade deal between Canada and the European Union. Back in March, we noted that the French Secretary of State for External Commerce, Matthias Fekl, said that France would not ratify CETA unless the corporate sovereignty, or investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), provisions were removed or replaced by something completely different. Of course, it’s hard not to be sceptical about these statements, since politicians like to grandstand, and are happy to change their positions every few months. But not, it seems, Matthias Fekl. According to a report on the French site Le Devoir (original in French), he’s still of the same opinion:

For the Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, Matthias Fekl, who expresses the official position of France, it is not only a question of principle but a fact of life today. If negotiators do not rewrite Article 33 of the [CETA] Treaty which deals with dispute resolution, there will be no ratification.

And it’s not just France that has a problem here. According to the article, Fekl said:

Look, this [refusal to accept the corporate sovereignty provisions in CETA] will also be the case in other countries. This isn’t meant as a threat. But as far as this chapter is concerned, things must definitely move.

The EU Commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, is well aware of the issues here — not least because 145,000 people told her in the ISDS consultation last year — and has presented a concept paper entitled “Investment in TTIP and beyond ? the path for reform” (pdf). These are quite similar to proposals made by Fekl for the creation of a new European court to settle trade disputes. But there are two big problems with following that path.

First, the European Commission (and Fekl) have only just begun to sketch out how that reform might look. It is likely to take some time to come up with alternatives like entirely new courts. There is no way that something will be agreed for CETA, which may be ready for ratification quite soon. There’s also the problem of TAFTA/TTIP. Given that Malmström has admitted that the current ISDS is unsatisfactory, and that she is trying to come up with something better, it will be hard for her to include it in TAFTA/TTIP in its current form. But the US side has made it clear that it is not happy with dropping corporate sovereignty completely, which leads once more to the problem of time-scales, since a serious replacement for ISDS may not be available even for TTIP. It will be interesting to see how Malmström deals with this key issue for both CETA and TAFTA/TTIP.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CETA Isn't Dead, But Its Corporate Sovereignty Chapter Is Still A Huge, Unresolved Problem”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
5 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Thank you Matthias Fekl

What I’d like to know is, why with so many politicians involved in these agreements, is Msr. Feki the ONLY one to realize how idiotic the concept of corporate sovereignty is, and how antithetical it is to state sovereignty?

It’s not like it is just constituents who lose out from corporate sovereignty; politicians lose out in the long run too, and the courts lose the most (through dockets being eventually plugged with court cases between two entities with bottomless pockets, instead of being filled with cases involving actual people).

It is possible that all the countries considering treaties involving corporate sovereignty need to first look at international treaty reform — so that limits are set on how treaties can be negotiated while upholding the sovereignty of the nations doing the negotiating.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Thank you Matthias Fekl

What are you talking about, the politicians involved don’t face any personal risk at all. Any lawsuits brought about by corporate sovereignty clauses won’t be targeting their money, and with the attention span of most people, probably no-one will remember that they sold out their countries should a lawsuit be brought.

On the other hand, you can be sure that those writing the agreements are being less-than-subtle about the rewards and punishments for those that help or hinder their desires, and that the politicians are very much paying attention to, as that does affect them.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...