Singapore was one of the first states to negotiate a
comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union (EU) which contains
an investment protection chapter. The EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
was described as a “pathfinder” for other states now negotiating with the EU,
as well as a potential region-to-region FTA – the future EU-ASEAN FTA. When the
Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decided that the European Commission (EC) did
not have exclusive competence to negotiate investment protection and
investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions on behalf of Member States
(MS), the EU and Singapore had to re-negotiate a separate FTA and investment
protection agreement (IPA) in April 2018. Looking forward, even if the 28 EU
Member States ratify the EU-Singapore IPA, there remain fundamental issues
arising from increasing future participation by international organisations
(IOs) in investment disputes, namely: (i) parallel proceedings resulting from
unsettled delineation of competences between international organisations and
their Member States; (ii) the effectiveness of treaty mechanisms for
determining the appropriate respondent; and (iii) attribution of responsibility
between Member States and international organisations. This contribution
reviews and analyzes these issues and draws some lessons, which are relevant
for other IO and third states.