Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

USTR and State Complete Three-Year Review and Unveil 2012 Model BIT

By Jonathan T. Stoel on May 3, 2012
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The State Department and the US Trade Representative (USTR) unveiled last week the new US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The release of the 2012 Model BIT signifies the completion of an Obama Administration campaign promise to conduct a thorough review of U.S. investment policy. The 2012 Model BIT retains the core protections set forth in the 2004 Model BIT while also making several significant changes designed to provide broader protections for American investors, to ensure greater transparency, and to expand labor and environment rights.

The 2012 Model BIT attempts to balance investor protections while preserving the Government’s ability to regulate in the public interest. Public reactions to the new BIT were mixed, as expected. Traditional opponents to U.S. investment policy such as Public Citizen decried the 2012 Model BIT, criticizing the Obama Administration for failing to include strong enough labor and environment protections and for preserving the ability of US and foreign businesses to initiate “investor-state” arbitrations. On the other hand, the US business community generally praised the 2012 Model BIT, particularly the new provisions targeting the activities of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT) expressed disappointment, however, that the “new 2012 model BIT does not strengthen core protections for U.S. investors overseas.”

The 2012 Model BIT could reinvigorate the BIT negotiations with both China and India. The US business community has prioritized these negotiations as they could help to open the doors to two of the world’s largest markets. However, in addition to the lengthy delay in the completion of the US Model BIT review, US talks with India and China have been slowed by disagreements over important substantive issues, including investor-state dispute resolution, intellectual property rights, and market access concerns. India’s Ambassador to the United States Nirupama Rao thus welcomed the 2012 Model BIT but was non-committal about whether its release would lead to higher-level negotiations between the US and India.

US Government negotiators are hopeful that ongoing, productive talks with Mauritius could produce the first BIT to be completed with the 2012 Model BIT as its foundation. The prompt completion of a US BIT pursuant to the new text would be an important step for the US Government and the US business community as the United States is not alone in its efforts to open markets through new investment treaties. Negotiators from China, Japan, and Korea reportedly have completed negotiations on a tripartite investment treaty, and the treaty text is expected to be released in the coming months.

Photo of Jonathan T. Stoel Jonathan T. Stoel

Partner, Washington, D.C.

Multinational companies facing international trade and other complex international disputes look for specific experience in the courtroom and in arbitration. So do investors enmeshed in investment disputes. Jonathan Stoel has the experience to support clients in these challenging circumstances.

A…

Partner, Washington, D.C.

Multinational companies facing international trade and other complex international disputes look for specific experience in the courtroom and in arbitration. So do investors enmeshed in investment disputes. Jonathan Stoel has the experience to support clients in these challenging circumstances.

A partner in the firm’s International Trade and Investment and International Arbitration practices, Jonathan handles complex matters involving treaty-based claims, international investment protections, public international law, and international trade and customs issues. He also provides guidance on the U.S. Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Jonathan helps clients in many industries, including the steel, pharmaceutical, energy, agriculture, and consumer products sectors. He represents claimant investors in investment arbitrations before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and its additional facility, as well as in ad hoc arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Jonathan also develops strategies for clients to avoid protracted and costly investment dispute settlement proceedings.

Jonathan regularly represents companies in international trade administrative proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). He also litigates appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade. Jonathan has resolved international trade disputes through arbitration before panels constituted pursuant to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Jonathan provides customs law guidance to clients on classification, valuation, tariff preference, and other issues. He has first-chaired client defenses in customs regulatory audits, prior disclosures, and penalty and forfeiture proceedings.

Jonathan also serves as the chair of the Board of Trustees of the Thurgood Marshall Academy, a Southeast Washington charter school, and as counsel to the Court-appointed Receiver for Options Public Charter School.

Read more about Jonathan T. StoelEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    Focus on Regulation
  • Organization:
    Hogan Lovells
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo