... 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

I think we are all still puzzling over what to make of the Appellate Body's reasoning in the Canada - Renewable Energy/FIT case.  Luca Rubini has some thoughts in a new paper.  Here's an excerpt: the fact that the market is even fundamentally distorted, to the

In the comments, Tom Miles of Reuters asks a great question, one that I had been wondering about: I've been thinking about the question of tobacco control legislation from the perspective of a nascent marijuana industry, and would be interested to know if any of your readers think

From the FT: A marijuana hangover is starting to hit the beer industry. At the beginning of last month, Colorado became the first US state to allow the sale of pot for recreational use. The end of pot's prohibition has rattled the beer industry for years, raising fears

From the EU's other appellant submission in EC - Seal Products: 284. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding that it "do[es] not consider that the legal standard with respect to the non-discrimination obligation under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement 'equally

This is from what looks like a fairly recent (November 2013) leaked draft of the CETA text: Article x-14: Claims Manifestly Without Legal Merit 1. The respondent may, either no later than 30 days after the constitution of a tribunal pursuant to Article x- (Constitution of Tribunal) and in

Canada's is here; Norway's is here. It's hard to predict how these appeals will go.  What issues will the AB focus on?  How much of the panel's findings will the AB revise?  Maybe the oral hearing will give us an indication. In

As all of you international law experts out there know far better than I do, Article 30(3) of the VCLT states: 3. When all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended in operation under

I read Karel de Gucht's Dusseldorf speech this past Wednesday with interest, not only for the question Simon rightly raises.  It is plausible that ISDS, and the proposed substantive obligations, would provide greater protection from abuse, and greater incentives to invest, where the host country has less reliable

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht gave a speech on the TTIP today.  In it, he said this about investor-state: Investment agreements also exist for a reason. Europe's economy – and Germany's in particular – benefits from the investments our companies make in other countries. And it