Suchergebnisse

Many European citizens are concerned about the concept of investor–state dispute settlement, which is frequently portrayed as giving companies the right to sue governments for lost profits in secret international courts. Those who favour US–EU collaboration, including through the ambitious Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement, can assuage these concerns by explaining how investment treaties strengthen international law. Governments created investor–state dispute settlement for their own purposes, anchoring it deeply in the UN system through numerous multilateral conventions–-the most recent of which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2014. By straying from this UN-based approach in its own response to public concerns, the European Commission might unfortunately weaken investor protection and the enforcement of international law. Its proposals on such issues as the right to regulate and the 'investment court system' should be reviewed in light of their impact on 50 years of international law.

The Commission's new Better Regulation package represents a step forward in the European Union's decade–long journey to bringing coherence and rationality to its legislative and regulatory process. But as the Communication on the package itself suggests, the journey is far from over.The Communication consistently emphasizes the key aspects of good regulation: quality over quantity; taking time to get proposals right; evidence–based decision making; open and continuous consultation to gather evidence from all stakeholders; rigorous impact assessments and cost–benefit analysis; applying these tools to regulatory measures as well as legislation; and implementing a robust ex–post evaluation program. It is important as well that the Secretariat General published unified and detailed guidance for Commission officials on how each step of the regulatory process should work, with a "tool–box" to elaborate further on these steps.All of this is good. Yet in some areas, the Commission misses opportunities to go farther down the good governance road, and in others the guidance needs to be made much more explicit.