English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

AIB Insights Vol. 16, No. 1 ConCerns ThaT inTernaTional invesTmenT agreements (IIAs) impact a government’s right to regulate and lead to “regulatory chill” have once again surfaced in the wake of the negotiations on the Pacific Rim’s Transpacific Partnership (TTP) and the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). These concerns are not new and have persisted since NAFTA Chapter 11 on investment highlighted the threat of private access to international arbitration through investor state dispute settlement provisions (ISDS) and led to unprecedented challenges to government regulations, particularly in the area of health, safety, and the environment (HSE). Are these concerns valid, and to what extent do such trade and investment agreements impact the regulatory development process and lead to regulatory chill? In this essay, I briefly introduce some insight from my on research based on interviews with HSE regulators in Canada, before reflecting on the broader implications for international trade and investment policy and domestic regulatory development in other countries.

Is It Chilly Out There? International Investment Agreements and Government Regulatory Autonomy