Filter case studies by:

Share this
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on facebook

Jan Kleinheisterkamp

Read their case study

Resources related to the case study:

About the author, department and project

Personal webpage:

Law Department:

Transnational Law Project:

Relevant research

Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2012) ‘Investment Protection and EU Law: The Intra- and Extra-EU Dimension of the Energy Charter Treaty’, Journal of International Economic Law 15(1), 85-109.

Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2012) 'European policy space in international investment law', ICSID Review 27(2), 416-431.

Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2014) 'Financial Responsibility in European International Investment Policy' International and Comparative Law Quarterly 63:2, 449-476.

Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2015) ‘Investment Treaty Law and the Fear for Sovereignty: Transnational Challenges and Solutions’ Modern Law Review 78(4) (forthcoming).

Policy briefs

Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2014) Who is afraid of investor-state arbitration? Or comparative law?

Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2014) Is there a need for investor-state arbitration in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP):

Kleinheisterkamp, J. and Poulsen, L. (2014) Investment protection in TTIP: Three feasible proposals:

Evidence of impact

Steve Woolcock et al (2010), The EU Approach to International Investment Policy after the Lisbon Treaty, Committee on International Trade (INTA), European Parliament Brussels. Kleinheisterkamp wrote the study’s second part on “The Draft Regulation on Transitional Arrangements” highlighting the potential clash between existing bilateral investment treaties (BITs) of the EU member states and EU law.

The findings of the European Parliament study were presented at a workshop on ‘Investment Treaty Law after Lisbon’, hosted by the LSE Transnational Law Project on 10 November 2010:
Available as mp3 podcast

The ideas of the previously mentioned papers and the experience with the negotiations at the European Parliament were discussed at a follow-up workshop of the LSE Transnational Law Project on ‘Rethinking Investment Treaty Law – A Policy Perspective’ on 23 May 2011:
[available as video
here  and as mp3 podcast here]

After commenting in an INTA hearing on a study by Professor Tietje on the Commissions draft Regulation on “Managing financial responsibility…” (COM(2012) 335 final), Kleinheisterkamp submitted comments as a written report to INTA in Dec 2012:

On the basis of Kleinheisterkamp’s report, in Feb 2013 the INTA members of the Socialists & Democrats (S&D) Group tabled draft amendments to the report by the rapporteur of INTA on the draft regulation. This included clarifications along the lines suggested in his report (amendments 21, 25, 26, 27, 28): (PDF)

The amendments were accepted by the INTA members and thus included in the final INTA Report for the EP Plenary in March 2013:  (PDF)

Based on the issues raised in Kleinheisterkamp’s report and adopted by INTA, there was a debate on ‘EU law and international investment law’ in the Plenary of the European Parliament on 22 May 2013: 

On 23 May 2013 the INTA Report was adopted by the EP Plenary without modifications:

The final regulation:

Relevant video and audio

Kleinheisterkamp speaks on 'Investor protection in TTIP: fading democracy or new generation', 12 February 2015:

Kleinheisterkamp explains his propositions at a conference on ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The TTIP’s Achilles heel?’ (starting 36’45”): 

Background on this issue

General recent background:

‘Trade deals: Toxic Talks’, The Financial Times 6 October 2014: (requires account)

‘The arbitration game’, The Economist 18 October 2014:

‘Public backlash threatens EU trade deal with the US’, Financial Times 13 January 2015: (requires account)

John Oliver's humorous review of the topic on Last Week Tonight (15 February 2015):

The debate in the UK:

George Monbiot, ‘This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy, The Guardian 4 November 2013:

25 February 2014: the Debate in the House of Commons: - see Column 186 onwards and especially 218, where MP Zac Goldsmith (Con) addresses the worries about unbalanced investment protection, closing: “As this treaty unfolds, it is essential that we remain mindful of who it is designed to serve. A guard needs to be erected against the voracious lobbying by big businesses that have a direct interest in undermining a number of the standards that I cited and have been cited by other Members. I personally do not trust the Commission to balance those competing interests, for all kinds of reasons, some of which I have hinted at in my short speech. I strongly believe that it falls to legislators like us to apply scrutiny throughout this process, and I very much hope that we do.”

The Report of the House of Lords:  - where the Lords at paragraph 167 insists on the need to get the substantive provisions right and at 169 “conclude that proponents of investment protection provisions enforced by an ISDS mechanism have yet to make a compelling case for their inclusion in TTIP or to convincingly dispel public concerns.”

Debate on TTIP and ISDS in the House of Commons on 15 January 2015 – see Column 1076:

NGO perspectives:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Investaphobia and the Irrational Fear of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (29 May 2014):

Eberhardt et al, Trading Away Democracy (November 2014):

Read their case study