The analysis of the implications of trade and investment agreements usually follows either economic policy modelling or the analysis of specific arbitration cases. These two approaches are often less helpful from the perspective of more systemic impacts or other policy aims as the potential concerns tend to be accounted for on the basis of a single issue (e.g. tobacco) or case or are carved out from particular agreements. The 3R framework on rights, regulation and redistribution provides a broader framework to analyse trade and investment agreements in relation to other policy aims, such as health or social policies and protection. I apply here the 3R framework to examine how and on what basis investment liberalisation and protection, as negotiated by the European Union, could affect both global and national policy space for health and social policies.
BakerBKGeddesK (2017) The incredible shrinking victory: Eli Lilly v. Canada, success, judicial reversal, and continuing threats from pharmaceutical ISDS (July 6, 2017). Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, vol. 49, 2017, Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 296–2017. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3012538 (accessed 8 October 2018).
3.
Bernasconi-OsterwalderNHoffmanRT (2012) German nuclear phase-out put to the test in international investment arbitration ? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall vs Germany II. IISD, Manitoba. Available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/1654 (accessed 8 October 2018).
BonnitchaJPoulsenLSWaibelM (2017) The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
CESCR (2001) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Twenty-Seventh Session, Geneva, 12-30 November 2001 Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Follow-up to the Day of General discussion on Article 15.1 (c), Monday, 26 November 2001. Human Rights and Intellectual Property Statement by the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, E/C 12/2001/15, 14December2001.
7.
CESCR (2003) General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant). UN Doc. E/C.12/20 02/11, January20, paragraph 35.
8.
CESCR (2008) General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (Art. 9 of the Covenant). UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/19, February4, paragraph 57.
CutlerAC (2014) International commercial arbitration, transnational governance, and the new constitutionalism. In: MattliWDietzT (eds) International Arbitration and Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DeaconBIlvaMKoivusaloM, et al. (2005) Copenhagen Social Summit ten years on : The need for effective social policies nationally, regionally and globally. GASPP Policy Brief 6/2005. A
15.
DezalayYGarthB (1996) Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of Transnational Legal Order. Chicago, IL; London: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Eli Lilly and Company vs The Government of Canada (2017) Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2. Final award. Available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/1625 (accessed 31 January 2019).
FryJD (2007) International human rights law in investment arbitration: Evidence of international law’s unity. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law18: 77–149.
19.
GallagherKP (2011) The new vulture culture: Sovereign debt restructuring and trade and investment treaties. Idea Working Papers 02: 2011. Available at: http://www.networkideas.org/working/jul2011/02_2011.pdf (accessed 8 October 2018).
20.
GertzGJandhyalaSPoulsenLS (2018) Legalization, diplomacy and development: Do investment treaties de-politicize investment disputes?World Development107: 239–252.
21.
GleesonDLexchinJLopertR, et al. (2018) The Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, intellectual property and medicines: Differential outcomes for developed and developing countries. Global Social Policy18(1): 7–27.
22.
GriffithRMillerHO’ConnorM (2014) Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation. Journal of Public Economics112: 12–23.
23.
Guth BarnesL (2015) How mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers undermine consumer rights and why we need Congress to act?Harvard Law and Policy Review329(9): 329–354. Available at: http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/9.2_2_Barnes.pdf (accessed 8 October 2018).
24.
HRC (2009) Access to medicines in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. A/HRC/RES/12/24. 12October. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council.
25.
HowseR (2017a) Designing multilateral investment court: Issues and Options. Yearbook of European Law36: 209–236.
ICSID (2005) Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22. Available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/157 (accessed 8 October 2018).
29.
ICSID (2012) Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12. Available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/1654 (accessed 8 October 2018).
30.
ILO (2001) A fair globalization: Creating opportunities for all. World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization. ILO, Geneva. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/wcsdg/docs/report.pdf (accessed 08 October 2018)
31.
JacobM (2010) International investment agreements and human rights. INEF Research Paper Series 03/2010.
32.
KoivusaloM (2010) Common health policy interests and the shaping of global pharmaceutical policies. Ethics and International Affairs24(4): 395–414.
33.
KoivusaloMPereduhoffK (2018) What future for global health governance and right to health in the era of new generation trade and investment agreements?Global Health Governance, vol. XII: No 1: 116–125. Available at: http://blogs.shu.edu/ghg/files/2018/03/Spring-2018-Special-Issue.pdf#page=116 (accessed 8 October 2018).
34.
KoivusaloMLabonteRSchreckerT (2009) Globalization and policy space for health and social determinants of health. In: LabonteRSchreckerTPackerC, et al (eds) Globalization and Health: Pathways, Evidence and Policy. New York; London: Routledge.
35.
KoskenniemiM (2017) It’s not the cases, it’s the system. Journal of World Investment and Trade18: 343–352.
36.
LabonteRRuckertASchramA (2017) Trade investment and the global economy: Are we entering a new era for global health?Global Social Policy18(1): 28–44.
37.
MatthewsD (2015) The right to health and patents. In GeigerC (ed.) Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, pp. 496–512.
38.
MazzucatoM (2018) The Value of Everything. Making and Taking in the Global Economy. London: Allen Lane/Penguin Random House.
39.
MeshelT (2015) Human rights in investor-state arbitration: The human right to water and beyond. Journal of International Dispute Settlement6(2). DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idv007. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2554086 (accessed 8 October 2018).
PCA (2017e) Philip Morris Asia limited (Hong Kong) vs The Commonwealth of Australia. Permanent Court of Arbitration. Available at: http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/5 (accessed 8 October 2018).
43.
PelcK (2017) What explains the low success rate of investor-state disputes?International Organization71(3): 559–583.
44.
Philip Morris vs Uruguay (2016) Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. vs. Oriental Republic of Uruguay (formerly FTR Holding SA, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay). ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, 8July, Available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7417.pdf (accessed 8 October 2018).
PoulsenLSAisbettE (2018) Diplomats want treaties: Diplomatic agendas and perks in the investment regime’. Journal of International Dispute Settlement7(1): 72–91.
47.
SchreckerTBirnA-EAguileraM (2018) How extractive industries affect health: Political economy underpinnings and pathways. Health and Place52: 135–147.
TienhaaraK (2009) The Expropriation of Environmental Governance: Protecting Foreign Investors at the Expense of Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
TienhaaraK (2018) Regulatory chill in a warming world: The threat to climate policy posed by investor-state dispute settlement. Transnational Environmental Law7; 229–250.
53.
UNCTAD (2014) Trade and Development Report. Geneva: UNCTAD.
54.
UNCTAD (2017) Trade and Development Report. Geneva: UNCTAD.
55.
UNCITRAL (2018) Report of working group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-fourth session (Vienna, 27November–1December2017). A/CN.9/930.
United Nations (2016) Report of the Independent Expert A de Zayas on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. A/HRC/33/40. Available at: https://www.right-docs.org/doc/a-hrc-33-40/
58.
Van HartenGScottDN (2015) Investment treaties and the internal vetting of regulatory proposals: A case study from Canada. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 26/2016, 9 December. Toronto, ON, Canada: York University. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2700238 (accessed 8 October 2018).
59.
VuralIE (2017) Financialisation in health care: An analysis of private equity fund investments in Turkey. Social Science and Medicine187: 276–286.
WHO (2014) Tobacco Control in the Era of Trade and Investment Liberalization, Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).
62.
WilliamsZ (2016) Investigation: As Colombia pushes for cancer drug price-cut and considers compulsory licensing, Novartis responds with quiet filing of an investment treaty notice. IA Reporter, 30November. Available at: http://isds.bilaterals.org/?investigation-as-colombia-pushes (accessed 31 January 2019).
