Simon Lester

It's always nice when I run across a piece of scholarship that appears to confirm my instincts (in this case, that U.S. and EU regulation are not really all that different): The regulation of health and environmental risks has generated transatlantic controversy concerning precaution and the precautionary

One of the criticisms of the TPP from some U.S. groups is that its rules on the environment might not be strict or enforceable enough.  (See, e.g., this NY Times article). But not everyone thinks trade agreements should take on this task.  Here's an example from

From my friends at the Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute of Geneva is offering up to 5 research fellowship for short-term period (3 months) in the context of the EU-funded Marie-Curie Initial Training Network “DISSETTLE” (Dispute Settlement in Trade: Training in Law and Economics). The basic gross salary is in

This is from Article 22.1 (general exceptions) of the just released Australia-Korea FTA: 3. For the purposes of Chapter 11 (Investment), subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between investments or between investors, or a disguised

From the Australia-Korea FTA: ARTICLE 20.5: RULES OF INTERPRETATION ... Where an obligation under this Agreement is identical or substantially identical to an obligation under the WTO Agreement, the panel shall adopt an interpretation which is consistent with any relevant interpretation established in rulings of the DSB. ... So what happens

From the WTO: Following a request from the participants in the disputes European Communities — Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (EC — Seal Products)(WT/DS400 / WT/DS401), the Appellate Body in these appellate proceedings has decided to open the oral hearing to public observation by delegates of

From the NY Times: A top-secret document, obtained by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, shows that an American law firm was monitored while representing a foreign government in trade disputes with the United States. ... The government of Indonesia had retained the law firm for help in

Should the U.S. adopt the precautionary principle?  Should the EU rely more on cost-benefit analysis? Or maybe this is a better question: Does U.S. and EU regulation rely on anything that could reasonably be called cost-benefit analysis or the precautionary principle? These are questions that come to mind

This is from the draft CETA investment chapter I mentioned yesterday: 2. A Party breaches the obligation of fair and equitable treatment referenced in paragraph 1 where a measure or series of measures constitutes: ... d. Targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds, such as gender, race or religious belief; This provision

... is here: http://www.tradejustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CETA-Draft-Investment-Text-Nov21-2013-203b-13.pdf It's fascinating, in a lot of different ways.  Read it and enjoy, if you like this sort of thing.  I'll mention some personal highlights based on a quick skim: -- it doesn't