As the MAI has been discussed by private interests, it is within the banking and investment sector that the terms of the proposed contract are of direct financial interest. Indeed, so far, these groups have had considerable influence on the negotiation process in two ways: opponents of the MAI have pointed to a perceived threat to national sovereignty.  and democracy, saying it would involve participating nations in a “race to the bottom” on environmental and labour standards.   The MAI has drawn criticism that it appears to have created a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee companies excessive powers to buy, sell and execute financial transactions around the world, which has severely weakened national laws, for example. B on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights in industrialized countries. With its arguments, the draft proposed an investor-state dispute settlement tribunal, in the style of a North American free trade agreement, in which companies could sue governments if laws (e.g. B for national health, labor or the environment) threaten their interests or are considered expropriations of actual or potential assets and/or profits.    Answer: No; While some investors try to do the “hop diet” to find the lowest regulatory standards, investment studies suggest that this is not a significant factor influencing investors` decisions. For years, industrialized countries have been successfully competing to invest in each other`s markets, and in these countries we have seen an increase, not a decrease, in environmental, consumer safety and labor standards.
Lalumière argued, however, that France should continue to liberalise investment projects, but not within the OECD. “In these circumstances, it would be impossible to compensate for the concessions demanded by the companies and, on the other hand, the objections of the opponents would be just as strong.”  France has been followed by a number of other nations, including Canada and Australia, whose governments have been subjected to relentless pressure from civil society to abandon or radically reconfigure the MAI. The MAI has been supported by both the OECD Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) and the OECD Advisory Committee (TUAC). While BIAC was interested in a stable and consistent treatment of investments, TUAC was interested in developing employment and labour relations standards.  The agreement will therefore be flexible to take into account each country`s priorities and will include annexes in which each country (referring to specific economic sectors and laws and regulations) sets its own country-specific derogations from certain MAI obligations, for example.B. National treatment, most-favoured-nation regime and benefit requirements. . . .