Investment Protection in TTIP: Three Feasible Proposals

  • Jan Kleinheisterkamp
  • Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR, volume 7)


Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) through international arbitration has become a major stumbling block in negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Despite a number of efforts to fix shortcomings of the existing system especially by the European Commission, many stakeholders still are unconvinced that these incremental adaptations are sufficient to safeguard policy space in Europe. Right or wrong, there is little political appetite to include similar provisions into TTIP. At the time of writing, Washington also showed little appetite for a transatlantic or even multilateral investment court.

In order to avoid losing support for the agreement as a whole, the parties now need to think about alternatives. This brief article proposes three solutions, which could be politically acceptable while at the same time offering meaningful investment protections. Our proposals are intended as a concise but constructive input to the increasingly divisive political debates, which are detracting attention from the broader economic and geopolitical benefits of a transatlantic trade agreement.


Investment Protection International Tribunal Domestic Court Arbitral Tribunal Investment Treaty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Mann H (2013) A response to the European Commission’s December 2013 document ‘investment provisions in the EU-Canada free trade agreement (CETA)’. IISD Report, International Institute for Sustainable Development, February 2014Google Scholar
  2. Bonnitcha J (2014) Substantive protection under investment treaties. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjorklund A (2013) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn State Law Rev 113(4):1269–1300Google Scholar
  4. Gallagher N, Shan W (2009) Chinese investment treaties: policies and practise. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Gaukrodger D (2013) Investment treaties as corporate law: shareholder claims and issues of consistency. A preliminary framework for policy analysis. OECD Working Papers on International Investment No. 2013/3, Accessed 21 August 2015
  6. Gaukrodger D, Gordon K (2012) Investor-state dispute settlement: a scoping paper for the investment policy community. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/03, 10.1787/5k46b1r85j6f-en. Accessed 21 August 2015
  7. Ginsburg T (2005) International substitutes for domestic institutions: bilateral investment treaties and governance. Int Rev Law Econ 25(1):107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ikenson D (2014) A compromise to advance the trade agenda: purge negotiations of investor-state dispute settlement. CATO Institute Free Trade Bulletin No. 57, 4 March 2014Google Scholar
  9. Jandhyala S, Gertz G, Poulsen L (2015) Legalization and diplomacy: depoliticization of investment disputes through arbitration? American power in the investment regimeGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson L, Volkov O (2013) Investor-state contracts, host-state “commitments” and the myth of stability in international law. Am Rev Int Arbitr 24(3):361–415Google Scholar
  11. Kleinheisterkamp J (2014a) Financial responsibility in the European international investment policy. Int Comp Law Q 63(2):449–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kleinheisterkamp J (2014b) Is there a need for investor-state arbitration in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP)? Accessed 21 August 2015
  13. Kleinheisterkamp J (2015) Investment treaty law and fears for sovereignty: transnational challenges and solutions. Modern Law Review 78(5):793–825Google Scholar
  14. Kuijper P, Pernice I, Hindelang S, Schwarz M, Reuling M (2014) Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the EU’s international investment agreements, volume 2—studies, report for Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Union, Accessed 21 August 2015
  15. Laborde G (2010) The case for host state claims in investment arbitration. J Int Disp Settlement 1(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lester S (2013) Liberalization or litigation? Time to rethink the international investment regime. CATO Policy Analysis No. 730, 8 July 2013Google Scholar
  17. Montt S (2009) State liability in investment treaty arbitration: global constitutional and administrative law in the BIT generation. Hart Publishing, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Paparinskis M (2010) Limits of depolitization in contemporary investor-state arbitration. Select Proc Eur Soc Int Law 3:271–282Google Scholar
  19. Poulsen L, Bonnitcha J, Yackee J (2015) Transatlantic investment treaty protection. In: Hamilton D, Pelkmans J (eds) Rule-makers or rule-takers: exploring the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Rowman and Littlefield, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Poulsen L (2010) The importance of BITs for foreign direct investment and political risk insurance: revisiting the evidence. In: Sauvant K (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2009/2010. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Roberts A (2010) Power and persuasion in investment treaty interpretation: the dual role of states. Am J Int Law 104:179–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roberts A (2014) State-to-state investment treaty arbitration: a hybrid theory of interdependent rights and shared interpretive authority. Har J Int Law 55(1):1–70Google Scholar
  23. Sauvant K (ed) (2008) Appeals mechanisms in international investment law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Schill S (2012) Deference in investment treaty arbitration: re-conceptualizing the standard of review. J Int Disp Settlement 3(3):577–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shenkman E (2002) Could principles of fifth amendment takings jurisprudence be helpful in analysing regulatory expropriation claims under international law? NYU Environ Law J 11:174–197Google Scholar
  26. Waibel M (2013) Sovereign defaults before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. West G (1999) Political risk investment insurance: a renaissance. J Project Finance 5(2):27–36Google Scholar
  28. Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Kleinheisterkamp
    • 1
  • Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Law DepartmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations