TAFTA

Le partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement (« Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ») mériterait plus d’attention qu’on ne lui accorde, et pour cause. D’abord, les négociations entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis ne sont ni plus ni moins que secrètes et ce qui en filtre demande un travail de traduction qui n’est pas à la portée du non spécialiste. Lorsque les médias à l’ordre interrompent brièvement leur silence à son propos, ils se font un devoir de reprendre le mantra néolibéral. Aucun dissensus n’est admis, ce qui n’est pas bon signe non plus. Ensuite, ses profondes racines ne sont plus connues. Enfin, il faut savoir que cet accord en cours de négociation n’est pas simplement « commercial » et qu’il n’est d’ailleurs pas vraiment un accord au sens où il instaurerait un « partenariat ». On se dirige toutes voiles dehors vers la servitude volontaire.

Il se nomme TTIP (pour Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), PTCI (pour Partenariat Transatlantique sur le Commerce et l’Investissement), Tafta (Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) ou encore GMT (Grand Marché Transatlantique). Ce traité, qui vise à créer la plus grande zone mondiale de libre-échange entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis, n’en est encore qu’au stade des négociations. Une partie de la société civile s’y oppose fermement, de même que certains courants politiques. Pourquoi ? Quels sont les dangers potentiels de ce TTIP mais aussi ses éventuels bienfaits ? Considérant que les 28 états membres de l’Union ont donné mandat à la Commission européenne de le négocier en leur nom, faut-il se résoudre à la signature du traité ou les négociations pourraient-elles encore capoter ?

Everyday people's opinions and actions matter to governments and corporations because we are both citizens and consumers. Despite the EU's muted response to the USA's and UK's surveillance scandal, we can deliver a strong response (as citizens and consumers) by carefully selecting which services, goods, and companies we employ. When citizens and consumers voice their opinions clearly and act upon them, governments and corporations respond accordingly - the EU's experience with ACTA last year proves that, without a doubt.

Everyday people's opinions and actions matter to governments and corporations because we are both citizens and consumers. Despite the EU's muted response to the USA's and UK's surveillance scandal, we can deliver a strong response (as citizens and consumers) by carefully selecting which services, goods, and companies we employ. When citizens and consumers voice their opinions clearly and act upon them, governments and corporations respond accordingly - the EU's experience with ACTA last year proves that, without a doubt.

In this empirical article I study EU-US free trade negotiations from the perspective of US trade policy and trade related regulation. I compare European negotiation directives to US reports on foreign trade barriers imposed by EU. In this way, I provide an answer to one core question: will transatlantic trade negotiations favor US trade policy and trade related regulations in contrast to European high level political regulation. Findings are, firstly, that transatlantic trade agreement, if concluded, seems likely shift EU’s regulatory system towards American market oriented framing; secondly, there seems to exits greater number of specific issues where possible regulatory alignment towards US trade policy objectives is to be expected than issues where EU would stick to other policy objectives (or its current regulatory standards); finally, as negotiations are being framed with chiefly trade policy concerns the high level of EU regulatory standards and other policy objectives seem to be in danger of being heavily neglected.

This draft is now obsolete, USTR issued a new report on trade barriers in 2015 while the EU has provided rather abundant new information on negotiating positions and provisions for the TTIP agreement.

Les négociations concernant un « partenariat transatlantique » ont été récemment lancées. Quels sont les risques principaux liés à celles-ci – principalement en termes d’agriculture et d’alimentation ? Quels sont les gains escomptés ? Le jeu en vaut-il la chandelle ? Telles sont les questions se trouvant au cœur de cette analyse.

In Europa e negli Stati Uniti, la crisi finanziaria ha causato importanti ricadute sull’organizzazione delle finanze statali e sulla politica di potenza. Con il sostegno delle opinioni pubbliche, il welfare State è stata privilegiato rispetto al warfare State. Gli Stati Uniti hanno così avviato un processo di understretching, mentre l’Europa non sembra avere le risorse e la volontà di assumersi nuove responsabilità geopolitiche. Pur non crollando, il ponte che collega le due sponde dell’Atlantico poggia su due piloni traballanti. Il flusso di potenza in uscita dall’Occidente, se non invertito, potrebbe quindi cambiare l’equazione globale del potere con radicali conseguenze per l’attuale ordine mondiale.

De lograrse el acuerdo entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, el TTIP, se crearía una zona de libre comercio que representaría casi el 50% del producto bruto del planeta y un monstruo de conocimiento y técnica inédito en la historia. Sus impulsores dicen que servirá para mejorar los estándares de vida de todos los ciudadanos, sus detractores, que es una amenaza para todos. Miguel Verde, filósofo, cofundador del Berlin Forum on Global Politics, sobre los alcances del TTIP.

Miguelángel Verde Garrido was a speaker at the #FixEurope Campus. He is co-founder of the Berlin Forum on Global Politics (BFoGP), a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of academic, expert, and public understanding of global politics. The BFoGP edited 'The Transatlantic Colossus', an international study on the free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States (TAFTA | TTIP).

Artikkelissa tarkastelen TTIP-sopimuksen merkitystä sääntelyyn ja sääntelyautonomiaan. Välineenä on palvelukaupan kolme ydinperiaatetta, suosituimmuusperiaate, syrjimättömyys ja markkinoillepääsy. Tarkastelen mahdollisen TTIP-sopimuksen merkitystä näiden periaatteiden kautta analysoiden. Lopuksi esitän kolme ehdotusta, joiden tarkoitus on joitakin pelisääntöjä markkinoiden ja demokratian väliselle suhteelle vapaakaupan kehyksessä.

This paper [which is still being edited] will discuss the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US). Negotiations for the TTIP are well under way.
The agreement will aim to remove trade barriers and improve investment flows between EU Member States and the United States. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and lobby groups have put significant pressure on these negotiations.
Regarding the trade chapter of the agreement, the discussion revolves mainly around the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade by the harmonisation of regulations on both sides of the Atlantic. There has been substantial opposition to the potential downward harmonisation. Some public interest groups claim that the agreement threatens existing regulations on, for example, environmental protection .
Negotiations on the investment chapter have come to a halt awaiting the results of a public consultation on investment protection and ISDS which was requested in June by the European Commission due to public disagreement . The fear is that the inclusion of ISDS will hamper the ability of States to regulate in the interest of the environment and public health, among others . On the other hand, the advocates of ISDS claim that its inclusion would promote the rule of law and strengthen the protections afforded to EU and US investors by the investment protection provisions .
So far the details of the negotiations have not been made public. Aside from a German dissent to ISDS , the EU’s negotiating mandate  and the rhetoric of both parties to this agreement would suggest that ISDS will be included in the TTIP .  While both the EU and the US claim that the dangers of ISDS will be abated by safeguards included in the text , it is worth studying the modalities of this dispute settlement mechanism so as to properly understand what ISDS means in the context of transatlantic investments.
This paper will follow the discussion in four parts. It will begin, Part II, with short history and a general evaluation of the risks and benefits of ISDS in TTIP. There will then be an analysis, Part III, of how some investment treaty provisions are interpreted by investor-state arbitral tribunals and the problems this poses with respect to regulation in the public interest. Part IV, will survey the possibilities for ameliorating the ISDS procedural mechanism, while Part V will look at improving the text in its substantive aspects, using environmental concerns as support, ahead of its probable adoption by the EU and US in their international relations.
The paper uses the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada as a backdrop to the analysis (CETA).

Do not hesitate to contact me for comments.