ISDS in TTIP: in, out or modified?

It seems that a breakthrough has been reached yesterday regarding the European Parliament report on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the S&D group in the European Parliament agreeing to a compromise amendment brokered by European Parliament President Martin Schulz regarding the highly controversial Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The proposal now reads in one sentence “to replace the ISDS-system” and “with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states” – a negation. This new system should “not undermine public policy objectives” as we have seen in several controversial ISDS cases: attempts by Vattenfall to reverse Germany‘s decision to shut down its nuclear power plants, Lone Pine attacking Québec‘s fracking ban, oil and gas giant Chevron evading compliance with its legal obligation to clean up the health and environment damages resulting from its operations in Ecuador, and Philip Morris challenging tobacco regulations in Australia and Uruguay. However, despite guaranteeing a transparent procedure by indepented judges and a appellate mechanism - which is a progress - the principle that companies will be able to sue states outside of domestic legal systems still prevails in the proposal. In the perspective of SOLIDAR this is not necessarily required since both the US and EU (still) have functioning legal and judiciary systems.