Enforcement and dispute resolution (pdf)

so TTIP arbitration by any other name ... wait for it...

In leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the direct [!] jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
[...]
There  are a number of existing precedents where the  EU has reached agreements with third countries which provide for a close cooperative relationship without the CJEU having direct jurisdiction over those countries.
[...]
The UK views enforcement and dispute resolution as two  distinct issues, and it is not  necessary, or indeed common, for one body to carry out both functions in this way.
[...]
For example, many  EU free trade agreements with  third countries include provisions on resolving disputes through a binding arbitration model in addition to mechanisms for political agreement.

NAFTA? SRSLY??

For example, the EEA Agreement provides for the creation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority. The Surveillance Authority is responsible for ensuring fulfillment of obligations under the EEA agreement by the EFTA States.

The ability of the European Commission and the CJEU within the EU legal system to impose sanctions, such as fines for non-compliance with EU rules, is exceptional.
[...]
There is no precedent [!], and indeed no imperative driven by EU, UK or international law, which demands that enforcement or dispute resolution of future UK-EU agreements falls under the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU.

< wipes tears >

o, I do believe, US District Courts beg to differ along with the Republic of Argentina and a host of USAID beneficiaries: indirect jurisdiction works!

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.