Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:11:52.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The European Union’s New International Investment Policy and the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals

Integration as a Motor of Substantive Policy Change?

from Part I - Penetration and Diffusion of the Sustainable Development Goals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
J. Robert Basedow
Edited by
Cosimo Beverelli ,
Jürgen Kurtz  and
Damian Raess
Cosimo Beverelli
Affiliation:
World Trade Organization
Jürgen Kurtz
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Florence
Damian Raess
Affiliation:
World Trade Institute, University of Bern
Get access

Summary

This chapter assesses whether the EU’s recent empowerment to conclude international investment agreements has made these agreements more development-friendly. Focusing on the EU’s choice of partner countries, substantive protection and treatment provisions as well as procedural provisions on investor-to-state dispute settlement, the chapter finds that the EU’s international investment agreements (IIAs) have indeed become more development-friendly in comparison to the international investment agreements of EU member states. They strengthen state interests vis-à-vis investor interests. The chapter tests whether these policy changes are due to European law obligations applying to EU international investment agreements, increased politicisation of IIA policy-making in the context of EU’s Common Commercial Policy, or the aggregation of diverse member state preferences into a common European approach. It finds that politicisation and aggregation of member state preferences primarily fuelled policy changes while legal obligations played no significant role. From a theoretical perspective, the chapter lends support to rational choice institutionalism, which suggest that institutional changes affect policy substance.

Keywords

foreign direct investmentinvestor state dispute settlementEuropean UnionSustainable Development Goalsbilateral investment treatiesregulatory space
Type
Chapter
Information
International Trade, Investment, and the Sustainable Development Goals
World Trade Forum
 , pp. 50 - 75
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfaro, L., Kalemli‐Ozcan, S. and Sayek, S. (2009). ‘FDI, Productivity and Financial Development’. The World Economy 32: 111–135. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9701.2009.01159.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basedow, R. (2017). The EU in the Global Investment Regime: Commission Entrepreneurship, Incremental Institutional Change and Business Lethargy. UACES Contemporary European Studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. (2016). ‘Manufacturing Discontent: The Rise to Power of Anti-TTIP Groups’. ECIPE Occasional Papers. Brussels: ECIPE.Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. (2013). A Response to the European Commission’s December 2013 Document ‘Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)’. Geneva, Switzerland: IISD.Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Hoffmann, R. T. (2012). ‘The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the New Dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II)’. Briefing Note. Geneva, Switzerland: IISD.Google Scholar
Bonnitcha, J., Poulsen, L. and Waibel, M. (2017). The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Busse, M., Königer, J. and Nunnenkamp, P. (2010). ‘FDI Promotion through Bilateral Investment Treaties: More than a Bit?’ Review of World Economics 146: 147–177. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-009–0046-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calamita, J. (2012). ‘The Making of Europe’s International Investment Policy: Uncertain First Steps’. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 39: 301–330.Google Scholar
Campact. (2014). A Corporate System of Injustice. Available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSuIGKSm7z0.Google Scholar
Corporate Europe Observatory. (2014). TTIP: Debunking the Business Propaganda over Investor Rights., Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory.Google Scholar
Demir, F. (2016). ‘Effects of FDI Flows on Institutional Development: Does It Matter Where the Investors Are From?’ World Development 78: 341–359. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.001.Google Scholar
Demir, F. and Duan, Y. (2018). ‘Bilateral FDI Flows, Productivity Growth, and Convergence: The North vs. The South’. World Development 101: 235–249. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.006” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.006.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. (2008). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, 2nd ed. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Egger, P. and Merlo, V. (2007). ‘The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on FDI Dynamics’. The World Economy 30: 1536–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskeland, G. A. and Harrison, A. E. (2002). ‘Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis’. Working Paper No. 8888. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://doi.org/10.3386/w8888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2010). Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy (COM(2010)343). Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015a). Better Regulation Guidelines. Brussels. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2015b). Online Public Consultation on Investment Protection and Investor to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). Brussels. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2016). The Multilateral Investment Court project. Brussels. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1608.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2017). Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA). Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151918.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2018). Sustainability Impact Assessments. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/policy-evaluation/sustainability-impact-assessments/index_en.htm.Google Scholar
European Court of Justice. (2017). Opinion 2/15. EU:C:2017:376 (May 16, 2017).Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2011). Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the Future European International Investment Policy (No. (201072203(INI))). Brussels.Google Scholar
Garsous, G. and Kozluk, T. (2017). ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis – Evidence from Listed Firms’. OECD Working Paper.Google Scholar
Gaukrodger, D. (2017). ‘Addressing the Balance of Interests in Investment Treaties – The Limitations of Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions to the Minimum Standard of Treatment under Customary International Law’. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/03.Google Scholar
Gaukrodger, D. and Gordon, K. (2012). ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community’. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/2013.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D., Nielson, D., Tierney, M. and Lake, D., eds. (2006). Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herzer, D. (2012). ‘How Does Foreign Direct Investment Really Affect Developing Countries’ Growth?’ Review of International Economics 20: 396–414. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9396.2012.01029.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, M. (2002). International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
ISDS Platform. (2018). ‘Veolia Loses ISDS Case Against Egypt – After Six Years and Millions in Costs’. Available at https://isds.bilaterals.org/?veolia-loses-isds-case-against.Google Scholar
ISDS Platform. (2019). Arbitration. Challenge to Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd. Arbitration Award. Available at http://isds.bilaterals.org/?arbitration-challenge-to-republic.Google Scholar
Jadeau, F. and Gélinas, F. (2016). ‘CETA’s Definition of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Toward a Guided and Constrained Interpretation’. Transnational Dispute Management 13: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2014). ‘Who Is Afraid of Investor-State Arbitration? Or Comparative Law?’ SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2483775. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Krajewski, M. (2017). The European Commission’s Proposal for Investment Protection in TTIP. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
Lavranos, N. (2013). ‘In Defence of Member States’ BITs Gold Standard: The Regulation 1219/2012 Establishing a Transitional Regime for Existing Extra-EU BITs – A Member State’s Perspective’. Transnational Dispute Management 10: 1–14.Google Scholar
Lavranos, N. (2014). ‘The Lack of an FET-Standard in CETA’. Montreal. Available at www.mcgill.ca/fortier-chair/files/fortier-chair/2014_ceta_lavranos_nikos.pdf.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (2001). ‘Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance, Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance’. European Union Politics 2: 103–122. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116501002001005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, H. (1999). ‘The Political Economy of International Trade’. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 91–114.Google Scholar
Monbiot, G. (2013). ‘This Transatlantic Trade Deal Is a Full-Front Assault on Democracy’. The Guardian, 4 November 2013.Google Scholar
Navaretti, G. B. and Venables, A. (2004). Multinational Firms in the World Economy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. and Spess, L. (2005). ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Increase Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries?’ World Development 33: 1567–1585.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2004). Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate in International Investment Law. Working Papers on International Investment 2004/4.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2018). FDI Positions by Country. Available at https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=FDI_FLOW_INDUSTRY#.Google Scholar
Pelc, K. J. (2017). ‘What Explains the Low Success Rate of Investor-State Disputes?’ International Organization 71: 559–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, M. A. (2003). The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L., Bonnitcha, J. and Yackee, J. W. (2015). ‘Transatlantic Investment Treaty Protection’, CEPS Special Report. CEPS, Brussels.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. N. S. and Aisbett, E., (2013). ‘When the Claim Hits: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Bounded Rational Learning’. World Politics 65: 273–313. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887113000063.Google Scholar
Raess, D. and Sari, D. (2018). ‘Labor Provisions in Trade Agreements (LABPTA): Introducing a New Dataset’, Global Policy 9: 451–466. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/1758–5899.12577.Google Scholar
Reinisch, A. (2016). ‘Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards? The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration’, Journal of International Economic Law 19: 761–786. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw072.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R. (1989). Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, I. (1977). Verischerung nichtkommerzieller Risiken und die Europäische Gemeinschaft, Kölner Studien zur Rechtsvereinheitlichung, Band 1. Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. (2008). ‘Rational Choice Institutionalism’. In Rhodes, R. A. W, Binder, S and Rockman, B, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford University Press, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Spiegel Online. (2015). ‘Massendemo gegen TTIP – So viele kamen noch nie’. Available at www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ttip-demonstration-in-berlin-stellt-teilnehmerrekord-auf-a-1057187.html.Google Scholar
Titi, C. (2014). The Right to Regulate in International Investment Law. Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Titi, C. (2015). ‘International Investment Law and the European Union: Towards a New Generation of International Investment Agreements’, European Journal of International Law 26: 639–661. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv040.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). (2018). ‘Investment Policy Hub’. Available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). (2017). World Investment Report 2017 – Investment and the Digital Economy. Geneva, Switzerland: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2018a). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2018b). World Economic Situation and Prospect 2018. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Van den Putte, L., De VIlle, F. and Orbie, J. (2015). ‘The European Parliament as an International Actor in Trade’. In Stavrids, S and Irrera, D (eds.), The European Parliament and Its International Relations. Routledge, pp. 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Harten, G. (2005). ‘Private Authority and Transnational Governance: The Contours of the International System of Investor Protection’. Review of International Political Economy 12: 600–623.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. (2002). ‘Rational-Choice Institutionalism’. In Katznelson, I and Milner, H, (eds.), Political Science: State of the Discipline. W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 660–692.Google Scholar
Woolcock, S. (2010). ‘The Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union as an Actor in international Trade’. ECIPE Working Paper 1/2010.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×