(EU) and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR)? - FDCL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 which was believed to be dead, could be revive through the backdoor through bilateral and regional treaties.” 330 330 Own translation of the following original text: “Die EU ist bestrebt, darin umfangreiche Zugeständnisse an internationale Investoren zu verankern (z.B. Rechtsgarantien zum Schutz ausländischer Investoren, eine Meistb egünstigungsklausel, Schutz vor Enteignung und Verstaatlichung, freier Gewinntransfer sowie ein internationaler Streitschlichtungsmechanismus). Das Europäische Parlament hat sich bereits 1999 dafür eingesetzt, daß ein rechtlich verbindlicher Verhaltenskodex für ausländische Investoren in Entwicklungsländern in den Anhang zukünftiger Abkommen aufgenommen wird, der die Investoren zur Einhaltung sozialer, menschenrechtlicher und ökologischer Mindeststandards verpflichtet. Einige der neuen EU-Handelsabkommen räumen internationalen Investoren tendenziell einen weitreichenderen Investitionsschutz ein, als in anderen multilateralen Initiativen bislang beschlossen. Insgesamt ist daher zu befürchten, dass über den WTO-Rahmen hinaus das bereits tot gesagte Multilaterale Investitionsabkommen (MAI) quasi durch die Hintertür auch in bilateralen und regionalen Verträgen wiederaufleben könnte.” Taken from: Schilder, Klaus (WEED): Regionalisierung unter neoliberalem Vorzeichen? Die polit-ökonomische Geographie der EU-Handelspolitik, June 10, 2003, http://www.weed-online.org/artikel/ 18513.html.
5.3 The EU-MERCOSUR association agreement: The deregulation of national markets through the regulation of international markets? The EU and MERCOSUR, after the “failure” of Cancún, have repeatedly emphasized their interest in finalizing an “Interregional Association Agreement”. A conclusion to this agreement – with the “ambitious and innovative provisions” of the so-called “fourth generation” – will now, after the EU-Mexico and EU-Chile agreements, be attempted within the EU-MERCOSUR context in the course of the coming months. Following the last EU-MERCOSUR ministerial meeting in Brussels on November 12, 2003 the negotiation plan of the coming sessions of the bi-regional negotiation committee (BNC) was tightened, so that the treaty will be prepared for the final consultations at the next meeting of the heads of state of Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe from May 28-29 at Guadalajara, Mexico, and could be signed, according to the plan, in October 2004. The issue of investment will play a central role here, which will have to be matched by the pretensions of the European Commission, which untiringly praises the compatibility of trade and investment with development. But so far the focus of the EU-MERCOSUR negotiation process seems to have favored trade and investment, so that the warning of the assessment expressed by civil society already in 2002 continues to be valid: “It is time to rethink the process of international investment agreements thoroughly. In particular the relationship between bilateral investment agreements and multilateral or interregional agreements needs to be articulated much more carefully and explicitly than has happened to date. That does not appear to be happening within the EU/MERCOSUR process.” 331 It not only has to be feared that, within the framework of the broad free trade agenda between the EU and MERCOSUR questions of development will become secondary just like the verbal avowals for human rights, but also that national scope of decision making with respect to development will be subjected to the dictum of profit and efficiency by means of the a) Proposed free trade agreement. b) Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with their far-reaching investors’ rights, which have already been ratified or are near to ratification. 331 Konrad von Moltke (International Institute for Sustainable Development): European Union / MERCOSUR Negotiations. The Environment and Sustainable Development Dimension, edited by: WWF European Policy Office, Belgium & WWF Brazil, April 2002, p. 23. 119
Page 2 and 3:
Christian Russau Enforcement of int
Page 4 and 5:
Preface Since the end of 1999 the C
Page 6 and 7:
If the “Interregional Association
Page 8 and 9:
8 Chapter 5: The enforcement of int
Page 10 and 11:
10 1.1 Negotiations of the “Inter
Page 12 and 13:
12 A similar agreement of the so-ca
Page 14 and 15:
14 tute in the eyes of many countri
Page 16 and 17:
16 amaraty, where the FTAA-negotiat
Page 18 and 19:
18 free trade agreement between the
Page 20 and 21:
20 at the UN Millenium Summit to ha
Page 22 and 23:
22 on the possibility of a unilater
Page 24 and 25:
24 tual contradictions between the
Page 26 and 27:
26 fired. The workers union OGB-L,
Page 28 and 29:
28 policy and EU development policy
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2: Foreign direct investmen
Page 33 and 34:
50% in 2002 as compared to the prev
Page 35 and 36:
The reasons for propagating this co
Page 37 and 38:
• according to a study conducted
Page 39 and 40:
promotion of domestic demand, in or
Page 41 and 42:
2.2 International Agreements and Tr
Page 43 and 44:
2.3 The World Trade Organization WT
Page 45 and 46:
• trade and investment • compet
Page 47 and 48:
2.3.3 The GATS agreement The Genera
Page 49 and 50:
which works on a profit-basis, sees
Page 51 and 52:
“deadline: by 1 January 2005”.
Page 53 and 54:
“discrimination” or “expropri
Page 55:
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
Page 58 and 59:
58 3.1 European foreign investment
Page 60 and 61:
60 zations and liberalization in La
Page 62 and 63:
62 the profitability, on the electr
Page 64 and 65:
64 America. Also the issue of human
Page 66 and 67:
66 • Thirdly the WTO Dispute Sett
Page 68 and 69: 68 to the U.S. trade power by rapid
Page 70 and 71: 70 The largest trade balance defici
Page 72 and 73: 72 OECD area by European companies.
Page 74 and 75: 74 EDF, has issued a similar compla
Page 76 and 77: 76 European automobile producers in
Page 78 and 79: 78 But not only international law o
Page 80 and 81: 80 ment,” which in the beginning
Page 82 and 83: 82 4. 1 The free trade agreement be
Page 84 and 85: 84 issues for us.” 233 On the oth
Page 86 and 87: 86 capital flows” explicitly. The
Page 88 and 89: 88 which also speaks out against th
Page 90 and 91: 90 in Congress and encouraged the B
Page 92 and 93: 92 studies in 2003 on the impact of
Page 94 and 95: 94 The MEBF successfully works as a
Page 96 and 97: 96 “We have tried to explain how
Page 98 and 99: 98 4.2 The example of Brazil: Forei
Page 100 and 101: 100 Brazilian Constitution. This wo
Page 102 and 103: 102 countries through CC-5 accounts
Page 104 and 105: 104 4.3 Brazil, foreign direct inve
Page 106 and 107: 106 “Commercial Presence: The jur
Page 108 and 109: 108 Providing cheaper access to wat
Page 110 and 111: 110
Page 112 and 113: 112 5.1 Foreign direct investment i
Page 114 and 115: 114 The agreement on government pro
Page 116 and 117: 116 5.2 The case of Chile: Foreign
Page 120 and 121: 120 c) The still pending Doha “De
Page 122 and 123: 122 gesamtamerikanischen Freihandel
Page 124 and 125: 124 · http://europa.eu.int/comm/co
Page 126 and 127: 126 · http://www.citizen.org/ · h
Page 128 and 129: 128 · http://www.rebrip.org.br ·
Page 130 and 131: 130 um den Markt der wiederentdeckt
Page 132 and 133: 132 · Torrent, Ramón: Acordos Int
Page 134 and 135: 134 DIHK Deutscher Industrie- und H
Page 136 and 137: 136 Lomé Lomé-Agreement between E
Page 138 and 139: About FDCL is a nonprofitorganizati
show all

(EU) and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR)? - FDCL

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?