U.S. Trade Deals May Finally Drop Special Protections for Investors

U.S. Trade Deals May Finally Drop Special Protections for Investors
Employees at work in the Honda car plant in Celaya, Mexico, Feb. 21, 2014 (AP photo by Eduardo Verdugo).

The special protection that investors based in the United States have long enjoyed when they do business abroad seems to be on its way out, and it’s about time. Unlike other private parties, including workers and consumers, foreign investors have access to special arbitration arrangements to protect their businesses in partner countries that sign bilateral investment treaties or preferential trade agreements with the U.S. This mechanism, known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, has attracted increased scrutiny since the U.S. insisted on including an expanded version of it in the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s. Now, both President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden have expressed opposition to, or at least deep skepticism about, this relic of the mid-20th century.

ISDS procedures began to be included in bilateral investment treaties, especially those negotiated by European countries, in the 1950s and 1960s, when a number of newly independent countries, many of them former European colonies, adopted nationalist economic policies. Their governments sometimes expropriated foreign investments that they viewed as exploitative and refused to pay compensation. Even though those treaties and others since then are between sovereign governments, the ISDS system allows private corporations to bring complaints about government behavior before independent international tribunals that can order the government to pay compensation if it is found to be in violation of the treaty.

The U.S. never relied on investment treaties as heavily as many European countries. But beginning with NAFTA, U.S. trade negotiators began incorporating ISDS panels in the investment chapters of bilateral and regional trade agreements. Controversially, the NAFTA model expanded the traditional model—which typically focused on expropriation or other blatant discrimination against foreign investors—to include “regulatory expropriation.” That allowed corporations to bring complaints against governments for regulatory actions that were allegedly arbitrary or capricious and that lowered the value of the investment.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review