Trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapters in international trade agreements include labour provisions with a view to prevent a “race to the bottom” and reaffirm the existing international labour commitments. When properly formulated and implemented, these provisions could have positive normative impacts on the international and domestic rule of law. This article provides a critical analysis of the evolution of labour standards in international trade agreements, particularly focusing on the European Union’s (EU) approach, in comparison with the approach in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). More specifically, it considers ways in which trade agreements contribute to the improvement of labour standards in domestic legal systems. While EU trade agreements embrace minimum standards under international labour law rather than higher standards that apply in the EU legal order, the article argues that there is at least a normative shift towards a more efficient implementation of labour rights through EU agreements, which could make a limited contribution to the rule of law.

This article examines the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in recent mega-free trade agreement. Below, I examine the origins of the ISDS concept and outline the controversy surrounding its use in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Then, I provide a theoretical discussion that outlines both the exogenous and endogenous factors that contribute to the inclusion of ISDS provisions in international trade agreements. Focusing on the latter endogenous factors, I then argue that not all international trade agreements are the same and that, as such, it is possible to develop a typology of international trade agreement across two variables (the number of parties and relative power) that impact the appropriateness of including an ISDS provision. I test this typology against the empirical record. Finally, I discuss potential innovations to the ISDS provisions and market-based mechanisms that address the dual challenges of discrimination and expropriation that ISDS is designed to address.1