Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Deputy asked why these are in place. He should consider a small Irish enterprise trading in the US. There are 50 different states in which a legal action might be taken to establish its rights under a trade agreement. In many cases, those states do not incorporate into their laws the specific elements of these agreements. The investor dispute mechanism is, therefore, a way of trying to facilitate the capacity to go to one location to establish entitlements under the agreement. It is similar for US companies dealing with 28 different member states in the EU. The difficulty of pursuing cases in different countries has been acknowledged. That is the reason ISDS mechanisms have been developed.

The Deputy is correct that there has been criticism of past agreements. However, the Canadian agreement and the current EU-US agreement are not more expansive in that the same provisions in respect of what can be invoked still apply in both agreements. The changes proposed under the EU-US agreement relate to the process such as the selection of judges who would adjudicate on disputes, the transparency of the procedure and the availability of an appeals mechanism. The EU is considering the possibility of applying those additional procedural protections to the Canadian agreement.

See this speech in context