Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
7 December 2012
E-011230-12
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE) , Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) , Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

 Subject:  Limited economic motivation for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
 Answer(s) 
When informing the INTA Committee on the investment protection chapter in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a Commission representative stated that including an investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the CETA was only of ‘some economic value’(1). Instead, according to the Commission representative, the actual reason for including an ISDS mechanism in the treaty is its ‘political value’. Could the Commission please clarify this by answering the following:
1. Why are chapters with limited economic value included in trade agreements?
2. What is the meaning of ‘political value’ in this context?

(1) Technical hearing to the INTA Committee on the investment protection chapter in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade agreement (CETA), 12 November 2012.

 OJ C 321 E, 07/11/2013
Last updated: 19 December 2012Legal notice