This is from UK business secretary Vince Cable, in remarks at a recent cabinet meeting:
Cable acknowledged there have been fears and some myths that US corporates would take the UK to secret tribunals unless all services are privatised under TTIP, but he told colleagues that a reformed investor-state dispute mechanism needed to be kept on the table, as part of a package of substantial reform.
He said Britain was pressing the EU to ensure private companies would be required in any disputes with governments to choose either domestic courts or an investment tribunal, rather than having two bites at the cherry. He would also demand judges that rule in the tribunals to be senior judges from the US/EU.
The last, italicized part is what interests me. That would be a major shake-up to ISDS. For most ISDS reforms, the supporters have arguments ready as to why no change is necessary. But is there any counter-argument to shifting away from the current system of selecting tribunal members, which has been subject to so much criticism?
