elni Review 2016, Issue 2, pp. 58-63. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2016.009

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU, its Member States and Canada has been presented as “the best trade agreement the EU has ever negotiated”. While there are certainly many advantages compared to older trade treaties, two remaining points of concern are investigated in this contribution.
The first one relates to the manner in which the EU utilises its own system for ensuring that sustainability concerns are integrated into trade agreements. In the first part of this contribution, it is investigated whether the manner in which the integration instrument is employed in the case of CETA, notably where the inclusion of an investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism is concerned, is in line with consistent, evidence-based policy choices and with the self-imposed guidelines as laid down in the so-called Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (TSIA) Handbook.
The second part of this contribution investigates whether the continued implementation of the precautionary principle on the side of the EU is properly secured in the view of the various rules, procedures and institutional arrangements contained in the CETA text. In that respect, the findings of a detailed study on this topic are summarised first, after which some of the critique from the side of the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation and from the EU Commissioner for Trade is examined and commented upon.

Access full article

References

1. Cecilia Malmström, CETA - An Effective, Progressive Deal for Europe, speech at Civil Society Dialogue Meeting, 19 September 2016.
2. W.Th. Douma, The promotion of sustainable development in EU Trade Policy, in: Luca Pantaleo and Mads Andenas (eds.), The European Union as a Global Model for Trade and Investment, University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2016-02, pp. 86-103.
3. Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), OJ 2012 C 326/13.
4. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ 2012 C 226/47.
5. Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment, 1st edition, 2006.
6. European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council,
7. European Commission, 2010, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM (2010) 342 final.
8. European Commission, 2010, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Smart Regulation in the European Union, COM(2019) 543 final.
9. European Parliament, 2012 ‘Resolution on the future European international investment policy’ 2 October 2012, 2010/2203(INI), OJ 2012 C296E/34.
10. Council of the European Union, 2010, ‘Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy’, 3041st Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg (25 October 2010).
11. Development Solutions, ‘A Trade SIA relating to the negotiation of a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada’, Final Report (June 2011) 19, 20.
12. European Council, 2015, EU-Canada trade negotiating mandate made public, press release.
13. European Commission, ‘CETA: EU and Canada agree on new approach on investment in trade agreement’ (29 February 2016) European Commission Press Release.
14. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part.
15. Answer given by De Gucht on behalf of the Commission of 5 February 2013, OJ C 321 E of 7 November 2013
16. Question for written answer E-011230/12 to the Commission of 7 December 2012, OJ C 321 E of 7 November 2013.
17. Answer given by De Gucht on behalf of the Commission of 29 January 2013, OJ C 321 E of 7 November 2013.
18. EurActiv 16 September 2015, ‘Positive effects of TTIP tribunals for investment unclear’.
19. P-T. Stoll, W.Th. Douma, N. De Sadeleer and P. Abel, CETA, TTIP und das europäische Vorsorgeprinzip. Eine Untersuchung zu den Regelungen zu sanitären und phytosanitären Maßnahmen, technischen Handelshemmnissen und der regulatorischen Kooperation in dem CETA-Abkommen und nach den EU-Vorschlägen für TTIP (German original), foodwatch, June 2016.
20. CETA, TTIP and the precautionary principle. Legal analysis of select- ed parts of the draft CETA agreement and the EU TTIP proposals (English condensed version), foodwatch, June 2016.
21. Stéphane Horel/Corporate Europe Observatory, A Toxic Affair, 2015.
22. United States Trade Representative, 2014 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, 2014.
23. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2014. European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden. Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Existing installation — Authorisation procedure — Procedures under way — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum — Penalty payment (Case C‑243/13).
24. Corporate Europe Observatory, Worse than expected: Commission criteria for endocrine disruptors won't protect human health, 16 June 2016.
25. Alyssa Alfonso, What’s More Hazardous – Endocrine Disruptors or the EU’s Proposed Criteria?, Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) blogpost.
26. Scientists for Scientific European Commission Regulation, Endocrine disruptors: science is more potent than politics, EurActiv 14 September 2016.
27. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 10 April 2014. Acino AG v European Commission. Appeal — Medicinal products for human use — Suspension of the marketing and the withdrawal of certain consignments of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel — Variation of marketing authorisations — Prohibition on marketing — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons (Case C‑269/13 P).
28. Court of Justice of the European Union, 1990, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 1990. The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: Fedesa and others. Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. Substances having a hormonal action - Validity of Directive 88/146/EEC (Case C-331/88).
29. Maxime Vaudano, Les traités transatlantiques menacent-ils le principe de précaution européen?, Le Monde blog, 29 June 2016.
30. WTO, DS26: European Communities — Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones).
31. WTO, DS48: European Communities — Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones).