Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDR) is an instrument that allows an investor to directly charge the country hosting its investment without the intervention of the government of the investor`s home country.  Since the late 1980s, some trade agreements have contained provisions for ISDS that allow foreign investors who claim to have been disadvantaged by the actions of a signatory state to sue that state before an arbitration tribunal for damages. More recently, such claims have increased in number and value and some states have become increasingly resistant to these clauses.  Chapters IV, Articles 24-28, would allow the free movement of the chief operating officers and other employees of a temporary working company between all contracting states.  However, Article 1, paragraph 2, makes it clear that the free movement of workers and citizens is no longer permitted. Many industries could suffer from increasing competition from Europe. This could result in fewer jobs for American workers. These disadvantages are edsed to any trade agreement. Former British Prime Minister David Cameron has said that critics of free trade should not use the National Health Service (NHS) to divert people`s attention and speak honestly about trade deals. The UK Department for Business, Innovation and Qualifications said TTIP provided adequate protection for the UK NHS.  Critics of TTIP argue that “ISDS rules undermine the power of national governments to act in the interests of their citizens” that “TTIP could even undermine the democratic authority of local government” and that it threatens democracy.
 France and Germany have stated that they want to remove TTIP`s access to investor-state dispute settlement.  In December 2013, a coalition of more than 200 environmentalists, trade unions and consumer associations on both sides of the Atlantic sent a letter to the USTR and the European Commission calling for the settlement of investor-state disputes to be withdrawn from trade negotiations, saying ISDS was “a one-way street by which companies can challenge government policy , but does not grant comparable rights to governments or individuals to hold companies to account.”   Some point to the “potential for abuse” that may be inherent in the trade agreement because of its investor protection clauses.   A recent study shows that there is indeed remarkably strong and consistent opposition to the trade agreement in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDR), and that this dispute settlement effect is characterized by characteristic cuts to key attributes of the individual, including qualification levels, information and national mood, which have been considered key factors in the business attitude.  This is the most fundamental question of TTIP.