Multilateral Investment Agreement Ppt

In the days leading up to the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, CESCR issued a statement to the WTO and its members19.19 More than 100 of the WTO`s 135 members ratified the international pact. In its statement, which was the subject of a wide report in Seattle, the Committee called on WTO members to ensure that the organization “plays a positive and constructive role in human rights. Trade liberalization, he said, does not and does not necessarily create an environment conducive to the realization of ESC rights. Moreover, “trade liberalization must be understood as a means and not as an objective. The end of trade liberalization is the objective of human well-being that international human rights instruments legally express. The Committee stated that it had “increasingly become aware of the extent to which international economic policies and practices are impairing the ability of states to meet their contractual obligations with respect to ESC rights. He called for all international trade and investment policies and regulations to be reviewed to ensure they are in line with existing treaties, laws and policies for the protection and promotion of all human rights. “Such a review should give top priority to the impact of WTO policy on the most vulnerable sectors of society and the environment. The Multilateral Investment Agreement (MIA) was a draft agreement negotiated between 1995 and 1998 under secret negotiation between members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). [1] It attempted to create a new body of universal investment laws that would give companies unconditional rights to participate in financial transactions around the world, regardless of national laws and civil rights.

The project gave companies the right to sue governments when national health, labour or environmental laws threatened their interests. When his project was published in 1997, it was widely criticized by civil society groups and developing countries, in part because of the possibility that the agreement would make it more difficult to regulate foreign investors. After critics of the treaty waged an intense global campaign against the MAI, the host country, France, announced in October 1998 that it would not support the agreement, which effectively prevented it from being adopted because of the OECD`s consensual procedures.