1 CETA, ch. 8, Art. 8.1 “Definitions.”

2 Id. Art. 8.10. As to TTIP, it contains similar wording in Article 3. Comparatively, TPP states that FET “includes” a similar list but does not restrict FET to that list (TPP, Art. 9.6, 2(a)).

3 El Paso Int'l Energy Co. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, para. 335 (Oct. 31, 2011).

4 CETA, Arts. 8.27–8.31

5 See, e.g., Pia Eberhardt & Cecilia Olivet, Profiting from Injustice: How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers are Fueling an Investment Boom, Corp. Eur. Observatory & Transnat’l Inst. (2012).

6 See European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA), A Response to the Criticism Against ISDS (May 17, 2015), at http://efila.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EFILA_in_response_to_the-criticism_of_ISDS_final_draft.pdf; see also, The Hon. Charles Brower & Sadie Blanchard, What's in a Meme? The Truth About Investor-State Arbitration: Why It Need Not, and Must Not, Be Repossessed by States, 52 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 689 (2013–2014)

7 Press Release of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Sept. 16, 2015).

8 TTIP also has a proposed provision (Art. 23) that would make it possible for a tribunal to accept interventions by third persons or entities which “can establish a direct and present interest in the result of the dispute (intervener),” but the intervention must be “limited to supporting, in whole or in part, the award sought by one of the disputing parties.”