The Missing Link: Direct Effect, CETA/TTIP and Investor-State Dispute Settlement

 

 

By Daniel Thym, Chair of Public, European and International Law, University of Konstanz

International treaties have rarely received more attention than the proposed free trade deals between the EU and the US and Canada. This entails that many law students and practitioners are confronted with a theme that does not feature prominently in legal education. In debates with students, I realise that preconceptions about the functioning of domestic legal systems are regularly projected upon the international sphere. One example is a demand that companies should challenge state action before domestic courts instead of dispute settlement bodies under the planned EU/US agreement (TTIP) and the proposed EU/Canada trade agreement (CETA). These claims often assume that national courts hold the competence to enforce corresponding rules. For lawyers working on domestic issues it seems self-evident that courts can apply the law.

Against this background, this blogpost focuses on a provision in the Draft CETA with Canada (Article 14.14: see the text below), whose relevance has not been acknowledged so far, including by the stimulating contributions to the Verfassungsblog Symposium on Investment Protection. On page 470 of the roughly 1600 pages of the consolidated CETA Draft Agreement, which the Commission regards as a template for free trade negotiations with the United States, we come across a final provision of seemingly minor relevance on ‘private rights’, which rejects the applicability of the agreement en passant. This reaffirms that the implications of the free trade deals would be less dramatic than some suggest.

Background: CETA and TTIP as International EU Agreements

In order to understand the relevance of Article 14.14 on private rights, we should apprehend that most segments of the free trade agreements would be binding upon Member States as an integral part of EU law. Axel Flessner may try to argue that the arrangements would constitute an ultra-vires-act (thereby initiating more tweets than any other contribution to the said symposium), but the plain Treaty text demonstrates that the legal picture is fairly evident. Article 207 TFEU declares that the EU’s Common Commercial Policy (CCP) allows for the conclusion of trade agreements on goods and services and embraces, among others, ‘foreign direct investment’, while Article 3 TFEU maintains that the conclusion of agreements in this area shall be an exclusive Union competence.

These provisions were a deliberate policy choice after decades of wrangles about the precise scope of the CCP. The Treaty of Lisbon was meant to replace earlier and ambiguous formulations with an overarching competence for the European Union. In its Lisbon Judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court recognised the pertinence of this change: ‘With the exclusive competence as set out above, the Union acquires the sole power of disposition over international trade agreements which may result in an essential reorganisation of the internal order of the Member States.’ Judges in Karlsruhe gave the green light to the changes nonetheless, albeit with a minor caveat that ‘much argues in favour of assuming that the term “foreign direct investment” only encompasses investment which serves to obtain a controlling interest in an enterprise’ and excluded so-called portfolio investments (ie, non-controlling interests in companies) as a result.

This reference to the limits of the CCP is relevant, since it indicates, in general terms, that there remain uncertainties about the precise delimitation of competences for corollary aspects of international trade. For that reason, most national governments maintain that CETA and TTIP should be concluded as so-called ‘mixed agreements’, with the EU and all 28 EU Member States as signatories. If that view prevailed, national parliaments would have to give their consent as well. However, this would not modify the internal allocation of powers; the EU institutions are in the driving seat in the vast field of Union competence – both during the negotiations and with regard to legal effects. It is established case law that the legal effects of mixed agreements follow the rules of Union law for all matters that are covered by the Common Commercial Policy.

Domestic Application of Agreements concluded by the EU

The predominance of Union law in legal practice can obscure our awareness of the specificities of the international legal system. Law students across Europe learn in their undergraduate courses about the direct and supreme effect of supranational rules, but are not always familiar with public international law. Domestic courts have to apply Union law in pretty much the same was as national law, but this assumption cannot be extended to public international law without modification, including in situations in which the EU concludes international agreements with third states.

It is true that the ECJ maintains that international agreements can have direct effect as an integral part of the Union legal order – and an example demonstrates that this can have critical implications: for example, judges in Luxembourg decided in July that Member States cannot automatically require the spouses of Turkish nationals to acquire basic language skills of the host country. Legally, this conclusion rests upon an interpretation of the so-called standstill provision for the self-employed in the Additional Protocol of 1970 to the Association Agreement between Turkey and today’s European Union. In the terminology of international trade law, the case concerned a so-called non-tariff barrier to the freedom of establishment. It is these non-tariff barriers that take centre stage in both CETA and TTIP negotiations (neither of the latter treaties will affect migration, though).

If the underlying legal arguments about direct effect and court jurisdiction extended to free trade deals with Canada and the United States, the implications could be dramatic indeed. Both the ECJ and domestic courts would hold the power to correct domestic or supranational legislation, whenever it falls foul of CETA or TTIP. Yet, this outcome is no foregone conclusion, since the ECJ opts for a direct applicability of international agreements ‘only where the nature and the broad logic of the latter do not preclude this.’ In deciding whether this is the case, the Court considers, among other things, the purpose of the agreement, the will of the parties and the question of reciprocity, i.e. whether the Union would be alone in recognising direct effect. Luxembourg may have largely ignored the question of reciprocity with regard to Turkey and other neighbours of the EU, but it traditionally takes centre stage in the evaluation of trade liberalisation agreements.

Article 14.14 of the CETA Draft Treaty

Once we have understood the far-reaching implications of direct applicability, we may appreciate the bearing of the clause on private rights in the final provisions of the consolidated Draft CETA Agreement, which states: ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations on persons other than those created between the Parties under public international law, nor as permitting this Agreement to be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the Parties.’

That is nothing less than the official denial of direct effect in the operative treaty text; neither the ECJ nor domestic courts would hold the power to apply CETA rules in domestic proceedings or to annul legislation which contradicts trade law. CETA and TTIP would get the same treatment that the ECJ accords to WTO law, which also does not have direct effect in the EU legal order and the domestic legal systems of the Member States – not even in situations, in which the appellate body of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism confirmed that EU legislation falls foul of WTO standards.

Denial of direct effect is an important stumbling block for the long-term success of any free trade agreement, especially when it comes to the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade, since corresponding rules are often formulated in an open manner. The real-life implications of such vaguely formulated provisions depends decisively upon the continued will of the parties and the availability of control and enforcement mechanisms – as the experience with non-tariff barriers to trade in the EU single market and the example of language requirements for spouses of Turkish nationals demonstrate. Without institutional control mechanism, vague treaty formulations are often ineffective.

Implications for the Debate about Investor-State-Dispute Settlement

In the light of Article 14.14 of the CETA Draft Agreement, we may have to re-consider our perspective on the proposed investor-state-dispute settlement rules in both CETA and TTIP. Critics will use the absence of direct application as an argument to decry the special treatment for investors; supporters, by contrast, will argue with the Commission that the dispute settlement bodies are a compensation for domestic legal remedies, which would not be available for the substantive rules of CETA and TTIP. I personally share the opinion of Christian Tams that the debate should focus on the desirability of special rules for investors (and not the question of procedure). The latter may be superfluous in relations with the US and Canada, but to abandon them would render it difficult to insist upon similar provisions in negotiations with China, Russia or other states we trust less.

In any case, the absence of direct effect in domestic proceedings shows that the legal implications of CETA and TIIP would be less dramatic than some commentators in the public debate suggest. Courts in Europe would not hold the power to annul domestic or supranational legislation, which violates the agreements – a power that also the dispute settlement bodies would be denied explicitly, together with the option for the state parties to force their reading of the agreements upon the arbiters by means of an authoritative interpretation. This would orientate the dispute settlement rules in CETA and TTIP towards inter-state bargaining, pretty much like in the WTO context.

The denial of direct application demonstrates that both the CETA Draft Agreement and the TTIP negotiation position are far removed from resembling anything like EU-style integration through law – and I consider this to be a good thing given that any dynamic interpretation would lack much of the democratic legitimacy and procedural constraints, which we have, notwithstanding all the deficits, in the European context. It seems to me that it is the biggest benefit of the debate about CETA and TTIP to this date that the broader public has started discussing the governance of economic globalisation. That debate will stay with us, even if an seemingly unimpressive provision on page 470 of the CETA Draft Agreement excludes the domestic enforcement of the transatlantic trade rules.

This blogpost has been published previously on ‚Verfassungsblog – On Matters Constitutional‘

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 25

Image credit: capreform.eu

Read More

Is readmission linked to development?

Steve Peers

In recent years, the EU has been negotiating Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) with a number of Asian countries. These agreements replace the previous development policy agreements which the EU had with the countries concerned. Compared to the previous agreements, the PCAs include go into greater detail about the EU's cooperation with the countries concerned, including the addition of further topics for cooperation.

Given the addition of these new topics, and the expansion of detail on other topics, the issue arises whether (like the previous generation of treaties) the legal base for the treaties concerned should be trade and development alone, or whether other legal bases must be included. Unsurprisingly, the Commission takes the former view, and the Council takes the latter. In fact, the same issue has arisen in respect of some recent association agreements, although they are not at issue in this case and are subject to a different legal base.

Who is correct about the legal base argument, the Commission or the Council? In today's opinion by Advocate-General in Case C-377/12 Commission v Council, Advocate-General Mengozzi argues that the Commission is correct. This particular case concerns the Council's decision to sign the PCA with the Philippines on behalf of the EU, and the Commission is challenging the Council's decision to add legal bases relating to the environment, transport and immigration policy to the trade and development legal bases which the Commission had proposed.

The starting point of the A-G's analysis is the CJEU's prior judgment of 1996 in Portugal v Council, in which the Court ruled that the EU's development policy legal base could apply to the conclusion of a treaty with India which included provisions on issues like energy and culture, along with a clause on suspension of the agreement on human rights grounds. The core of the Court's reasoning was that a development policy treaty could include general provisions on issues like energy and culture, as long as cooperation on these issues contributed to the development of the countries concerned, but if there were any detailed commitments on such issues in the treaty, other legal bases would have to be added. Furthermore, it was acceptable for such treaties to include a clause allowing for their suspension on human rights grounds.

Applying that prior case law to the PCA with the Philippines, while the provisions in that treaty on transport and the environment are more detailed than those in prior development policy agreements, the A-G argues that such clauses still set out only general obligations, and still contribute to the development of that country. The Council also raised arguments about the impact of the clause allowing the PCA to be suspended in the event of concerns about human rights, democracy and the rule of law, but the A-G does not believe that should affect the legal base for signing the agreement.

The provision in the PCA on immigration raises more difficult issues. The A-G draws a distinction between the more general paragraphs on immigration management, and the more specific paragraphs dealing with readmission. The former clauses do not set out precise legal obligations, while the latter do: the parties have agreed to take back their own nationals who stay on the territory of the other parties without authorisation, and have agreed to negotiate a readmission treaty. In the A-G's view, these clauses don't contribute to the development of the Philippines either. In fact, they only serve the EU's interest.

But having said that, he still concludes that the Council should not have added a separate legal base for the readmission clauses, since (following other prior case-law) this issue is ancillary to the main thrust of the agreement. In particular, he reaches this conclusion because the EU only obtained the Philippines' consent to the readmission clauses in return for the Union's commitments as regards development in the rest of the PCA.

Comments

Why did the Commission bring this action? It is not contesting the nature of the PCA as a 'mixed agreement', ie concluded by the Member States as well as the EU. Also, the inclusion of the extra legal bases did not change the voting rules in the Council, as it will still vote by a qualified majority regardless. Anyway, as long as the Member States are party to the agreement, there is de facto unanimous voting, since they act by common accord.

The Commission may have an agenda to reduce the use of the transport legal bases in agreements which also relate to trade, given the 'transport services' exception in the Treaty rules relating to the common commercial (external trade) policy, which sullies the purity of a key EU external competence which would otherwise be purely exclusive. This makes sense, but the EU's free trade agreements usually include detailed commitments on trade in transport services, so the transport services exception is surely applicable. On this point, the better strategy for the Commission would be to propose internal EU legislation which more fully harmonises the regulation of transport services to and from third countries. If and when such legislation is adopted, the EU would gain exclusive external competence over this issue via the normal (ERTA) route. Of course, this is easier said than done.

Leaving aside the specific issue of transport services, perhaps the Commission wants to reduce the use of additional legal bases besides the common commercial policy in the EU's free trade agreements more generally (although the PCA with the Philippines is not itself a free trade agreement), given that such clauses are seemingly usually added in order to trigger mixed competence between the EU and the Member States (and therefore give Member States a veto). The most egregious example of this is the bizarre cultural protocol attached to the EU/Korea free trade agreement. If the Court follows the A-G's opinion in this case, the Council's ability to do this will be restrained a little, although the Member States can still get their way on this issue if they insist on attaching a protocol with sufficiently detailed obligations in the extraneous field.

This brings us to the key issue of external migration, in particular readmission. The effect of including legal bases on this issue is that the UK, Ireland and Denmark have an opt-out from legal rules concerned. In practice, the UK tends to opt in to EU readmission agreements anyway, so this is more a point of principle for that Member State.

Is the Opinion convincing? Certainly the PCA does not contain detailed rules on transport or the environment (compare it to the EU's aviation liberalisation treaties with third States, or international environmental treaties), and cooperation on such issues will surely aid the Philippines' development. Of course, increasing transport to and from the country and protecting the environment there may well be contradictory objectives, but the list of EU external objectives in Article 21 TEU is rife with such contradictions.

It could be added that including environmental provisions in the PCA is consistent with the obligation to integrate environmental protection into all EU polices. The A-G is also surely right to say that improving transport security and safety will aid the Philippines' development: no-one will want to fly there if their plane is liable to crash or be blown up.

As for the immigration clauses, the migration management rules are not only not very precise; it could be added that they are closely related to the development of the Philippines. However, the A-G's arguments relating to the readmission clauses are, with great respect, not convincing. It is true to say that they set out precise obligations and do not aid the Philippines' development, but then the A-G does not draw the obvious conclusion that a specific legal base concerning immigration is therefore necessary. While is certainly true that the readmission clauses and the development policy commitments are linked politically, it does not therefore follow that the legal base of the former clauses should change.

One final thought: the judgment in this case, whichever party is successful, could be an opportunity for the Commission to suggest a relaunch or review of the EU's policy on external migration management and/or readmission. For instance, why not adopt EU legislation setting out specific rules on coordination of Member States' external migration treaties? (Such legislation exists in a number of other EU policy fields). This can be justified as a necessary feature of the development of a common EU immigration policy, and would be an opportunity in particular to ensure that such treaties are consistent with the human rights obligations of the EU and its Member States.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 24, chapter 26

Read More