<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20181005-151251-0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/en-verhinderte-rechtsanwendung-deutsche-gerichte-cetatiip-und-investor-staat-streitigkeiten-2/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>The Missing Link: Direct Effect, CETA/TIIP and Investor-State-Dispute Settlement</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Thym, Daniel</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2015-01-04</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-NC-ND 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>International treaties have rarely received more attention than the proposed free trade deals with the US and Canada. But in the CETA Draft Agreement, which the Commission regards as a template for free trade negotiations with the United States, we come across a final provision of seemingly minor relevance on ‘private rights’, which rejects the applicability of the agreement en passant. This reaffirms that the implications of the free trade deals would be less dramatic than some suggest.</dc:description>
</dc>
