EU:s och USA:s förslag till tvistlösning i TTIP - en regeljämförelse

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this thesis was to make a comparison between the two proposals for investment dispute resolution under TTIP, currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The study was made to answer the following question: - What level of protection does the US and the EU proposals, respectively, grant an investor wanting to safeguard an investment? The question was answered using a dogmatic approach, with the help of a comparative method for some of the analysis. The two proposals have much in common as regards to claims, defense, amicable resolutions and negotiations, choice of law and rules of interpretation. The prerequisites for taking a case to court following a breach of the agreement are clear and fully regulated through both proposals. The most notable differences come from the choice of forum. The US uses a traditional arbitration procedure while the EU proposes a permanent court not unlike national and international courts, including a court of appeals. The findings are that the US proposal will lead to shorter wait, more flexibility, a slightly higher level of transparency and less conflict of interest amongst the judges. The EU proposal might very well lead to a richer set of case law, although at the expense of lengthier and more expensive proceedings. A number of possible conflicts of interest with the established EU legal order are identified, which might possibly lead to a distortion of competition and uncertainty. The thesis ends with the conclusion, however, that both of the proposed dispute settlement mechanisms offer reasonable possibilities to safeguard an investment under any of the proposals.