The CAI also represents an important milestone, as it is the first time that China has committed to upholding labour and environmental standards as part of an economic agreement. Conversely, the phase one trade deal reached between the United States and China under the Trump administration does not include a section on sustainable development. In addition, it is important to stress that the agreement incorporates the current level of market access in China into international law. In this context, the CICA will form the basis for an EU-China roundtable on key issues such as a level playing field (ensuring fair and open competition between companies on both sides), labour and climate change. If the CICA is ratified, the parties will still have to agree on the outstanding provisions to protect investors. Although the EU`s stated objective is for the CAI to replace Member States` existing BITs with China, Article 15(1) of the CAI in Section VI(2) explicitly retains previous agreements between the EU and China for the time being. Nevertheless, the CAI is not error-free. There is no mention of human rights in the agreement. In November and December 2020, just before the EU and China announced that they had agreed on the text, the European Parliament issued two resolutions stressing that „respect for human rights is a prerequisite for establishing trade and investment relations with the EU“ and „the government-led system of forced labour“. condemned, inter alia, the exploitation of Uyghurs and other Muslim minority groups.

in Xinjiang. In addition, 36 civil society organisations have signed an open letter to the EU. The appeal calls for the inclusion of a binding human rights clause in the CAI. It also urges the EU to make its accession to the agreement conditional on China`s ratification of key human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ILO conventions. After reaching an agreement in principle between the two parties in December 2020, the Commission proposed that the next steps be the finalisation of the agreement as well as the submission for approval by the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. As tensions between the EU and China mounted, the European Parliament finally voted in May 2021 to freeze ratification of the CAI until China lifted sanctions imposed on some MEPs and EU institutions. Successful ratification of the International Cooperation Agreement and the Final ISDS Agreement could further promote arbitration by providing investors with more uniform and comprehensive protection. On the other hand, the lack of ratification of the CAI would reflect tensions between China and the EU, which would lead to additional potential claims. A particular area to watch is the continuing concerns of some EU Member States about the security and degree of China`s influence over key sectors of the economy. What the EU means by cutting-edge investor protection and ISDS provisions is relatively clear from its recent agreements with Canada, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam and from its leading position in the ongoing UNCITRAL negotiations. Firstly, as far as material protection is concerned, this is a more precisely defined scope of the FET, with clear respect for the Right of the State to regulate and the explicit outsourcing of measures in the field of public health and the environment. Second, with regard to the ISDS process, it refers to the establishment of a permanent tribunal and, finally, to the replacement of the current system of arbitral tribunals appointed by the parties by a multilateral investment court (TRIM).

The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is a planned trade agreement between the People`s Republic of China and the European Union. The agreement proposed in 2013 had not yet been signed as of 31 December 2021. [1] In December 2020, the European Commission announced that the agreement had been concluded in principle by the Heads of State or Government of the European Council pending its ratification by the European Parliament. [2] In 2016, the two parties agreed on the scope of the future agreement. They agreed that it would go beyond a traditional investment protection agreement and cover market access for investment and a number of important disciplines. It would also contain provisions on sustainable development and dispute settlement. The EU and China started negotiations on the CCM in 2014. The European Commission carried out an impact assessment in 2013. A sustainability impact assessment was carried out between 2015 and 2018 to assess the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of the agreement. FIDH and its subsidiaries ICT and HRIC called for strengthening the EU`s position and condemned the Comprehensive Investment Agreement (CAI) negotiated between the EU and China as failing to ensure that the investments supported by the agreement are compatible with international law. Building on its many years of work denouncing systematic discrimination against Uyghurs, forced labour and the lack of results of EU status quo policies, which were mainly based on ineffective dialogue, FIDH launched a coordinated NGO campaign for „the inclusion of enforceable human rights clauses in the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement“ and held briefings with States.

EU members. Members of the European Parliament and of the European Commission. As far as sustainable development is concerned, the agreement is based on two pillars: labour and the environment. The EU and China agreed to effectively implement the objectives of the Paris Agreement and committed to effectively implement ilo conventions already ratified and ratify core conventions that have not yet been ratified, in particular on the abolition of forced labour. Negotiations on these provisions have been extremely difficult and have even become the main obstacle to an agreement. The EU-China IAC is an investment agreement that does not contain trade issues and is mainly based on existing obligations under WTO law. Therefore, the agreement in principle is structured around three main themes: investment, sustainable development and monitoring and implementation mechanisms. During a hearing before the European Parliament, FIDH affiliate HRIC stressed the impossibility for the EU to pursue such an agreement in the current context and in the absence of human rights guarantees.

.