Answer: No, the MAI will not force its members to allow unrestricted foreign investment in all sectors of the economy. The MAI will take into account that certain sectors are politically and/or economically sensitive for each country and are therefore exempt from the obligations. The MAI also recognizes that these sensitive areas vary from country to country. The withdrawal of the France follows the examination of a report on the negotiations prepared by a French MEP, Catherine Lalumière. Upon receipt of this report, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin addressed the National Assembly on 10 October 1998 and announced his decision to withdraw. He said that the Lalumière report had highlighted a number of fundamental problems related to the agreement, particularly with regard to issues of national sovereignty. Mrs. Lalumière had also concluded that so many reserves had been included in the agreement that the value would be limited for French investors. Mr. Jospin noted that in February 1998, the French Government had identified respect for cultural differences as a precondition for French support for the Agreement.  In particular, he was concerned that the French film industry needed to be protected from U.S. imports.  If you are considering investing in foreign markets, it is essential to promptly review the safeguards offered by bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and multilateral investment treaties (MATs).
Question: Will the MAI contain provisions that prevent popular boycotts or any type of investment boycott aimed at punishing foreign investors in the United States who engage in activities in third countries that we consider incompatible with our interests? The UK government seems to be taking a surprisingly complacent approach to the WTO. When the MAI collapsed, then-Commerce Secretary Brian Wilson seemed to have understood some of the concerns expressed. He called for all new negotiations to begin with a «blank sheet» based on targets that should «take full account of social and environmental concerns». But despite these commitments, the government is pushing for the WTO to cover foreign investment according to the same principles. It is a driving force behind the EU`s investment proposal. In doing so, it ignores widespread opposition to the MAI and growing evidence of the WTO`s pathetic failures.  The scope of protection under the BIT and MIT is potentially broad and should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis before ruling out the availability of an investment remedy. For example, expropriation rights may apply if a State engages in intrusive or «creeping» acts that cumulatively, but not individually, deprive the investment of its economic value or remove control from the foreign investor. According to some treaties, FET protection may extend to subsequent measures taken by the State, e.B amendments to laws or regulations, withdrawal of essential licences, introduction of new customs duties or export quotas, etc. As a typical example, a country that requires an investor to obtain government approval before investing (the United States does not have such an investment «screening» process) could make its consent conditional on the investor`s approval to buy all of its raw materials locally or export all or a certain percentage of its finished products. Sometimes governments impose such «performance requirements» as a condition for the investor to receive a government subsidy or other benefit offered by the government. Investment treaties such as BITs and MIT are legal instruments concluded by two or more States to increase their flow of investment between States Parties.
They achieve this objective by providing foreign investors in the «home state» with some legal protection against adverse acts of the «host state» in which they invest. The protection afforded by such contracts may complement any contractual arrangement that an investor would otherwise have with the State. It should also protect against unlawful acts of the host Member State in the absence of such contractual arrangements. The MAI would provide a comprehensive framework to combat foreign investment. It would allow countries to make derogations from certain MAI obligations (such as national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment) in areas of particular political or economic sensitivity. For example, the United States is working to ensure that U.S. obligations under the MAI do not go beyond what we already have in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or in the 31 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to which the United States has acceded. In fact, many elements of the MAI are guided by the provisions already contained in these agreements, which have been developed taking into account U.S. investment policy and regulatory practices. To be sure, you do not need to have a contractual relationship with a Contracting State to be protected by an ILO or MIT. On the contrary, these treaties protect your investments in foreign states from a variety of harms that the foreign state could commit against your investment. The details of the MAI negotiations were little known until a draft agreement was released in March 1997.
 The leaks have drawn criticism from various NGOs around the world. As a result, negotiations failed in 1998, when France first and then other countries gradually withdrew under pressure from a global movement of NGOs, civic groups and a number of developing country governments. In April 1998, negotiations were formally suspended for six months.  On 3 December 1998, the OECD announced that «the MAI negotiations are no longer taking place».  Response: The MAI`s dispute resolution procedures are carefully drafted, so that for the United States, the burden of defending claims rests with the federal government, not the states or municipalities. We do not expect foreign investors to file a significant number of lawsuits against the United States under the MAI, for the simple reason that we do not expect the federal government, states or municipalities to have difficulty complying with MAI regulations, as the current guidelines are already consistent with the MAI commitments or listed in the U.S. Exemption Annex. become. Moreover, not a single investment lawsuit has been brought against the United States in its dispute settlement proceedings since NAFTA came into force, and NAFTA contains much of the same type of investment commitments as those negotiated in the MAI.
Supporters of the MAI (such as the United States, Canada and several EU members) continue to promote investment provisions similar to those of the MAI through regional trade agreements, bilateral investment treaties, bilateral free trade agreements and discussions within the World Trade Organization that will be included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Before the end of 1998, the British Secretary of Commerce, Brian Wilson, began to announce that the investment negotiations could be transferred to the WTO. The Multilateral Investment Convention (MAI) was a draft agreement secretly negotiated between 1995 and 1998 between members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  The goal was to create a new set of universal investment laws that would give companies unconditional rights to participate in financial transactions around the world, regardless of national laws and civil rights. The bill gave companies the right to sue governments when national health, labor or environmental laws threatened their interests. When his draft was published in 1997, it drew widespread criticism from civil society groups and developing countries, particularly over the possibility that the agreement would make it more difficult to regulate foreign investors. .