International Investment Agreements, and More from CRS
The international agreements that constitute the infrastructure of international trade and investment are spotlighted in an informative new report from the Congressional Research Service.
“In the absence of an overarching multilateral framework on investment, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment chapters in free trade agreements (FTAs), collectively referred to as ‘international investment agreements,’ have emerged as the primary mechanism for promoting a rules-based system for international investment,” the new report explains.
“Presently, there are over 3,000 BITs globally. The United States has concluded 47 BITs, 41 of which have entered into force.” These treaties were tabulated by CRS and presented along with other little-known data on the subject in U.S. International Investment Agreements: Issues for Congress, April 29, 2013.
Other new or newly updated CRS reports obtained by Secrecy News include the following.
Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies, April 29, 2013
National Park System: Establishing New Units, April 25, 2013
The Administrative Process by Which Groups May Be Acknowledged as Indian Tribes by the Department of the Interior, April 26, 2013
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Reform: An Overview of Proposals to Reduce the Growth in SSDI Rolls, April 29, 2013
Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues, April 26, 2013
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.