Document Type : Original Article
Professeur Titulaire à la Faculté de Droit de l’Université Laval, Il est codirecteur du Centre de droit international et transnational (CDIT) et membre du Centre d’études pluridisciplinaires
Investor-state arbitration based on an international agreement allows foreign companies to directly file a claim against the state where they have invested, in order to obtain compensation for the damage caused by a measure contrary to that agreement. Because of the prior consent given by the states to this arbitration, as well as the very broad scope of the protection offered to foreign companies by these investment agreements, the arbitration between investor and state arouses great controversy in both industrialized and developing countries. This article analyses how this controversy has had a very different impact on the investment chapters of three recently concluded regional trade agreements, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA) and the Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico (CUSMA). Three models stand out : that of maintaining arbitration between investor and State, that of its transformation and finally that of its abandonment. In conclusion, some recommendations are made to the Egyptian government in light of these recent developments.