Prime Minister Imran Khan has approved the formation of a working group of experts for reforming Pakistan’s international investment regime.
The problem with the ISDS is not the format of the dispute settlement. The problem is that it is designed to give corporations power to go after government policies.
Meaningful reform aligned with sustainable development seems less likely
Why retain ISDS, this neo-colonial vestige that is not supported by consistent evidence that it contributes to advancing development or the rule of law?
A written submission from Japan published by the ECT secretariat rejected language on the “right to regulate” and changes to the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism.
Tanzania’s reforms show that the claim that African states should regard ISDS mechanism as the preferred method for resolving investment disputes is not only very contested, but that there are legitimate grounds for those contestations.
The hegemon aspirants in international investment law have already, and perhaps unwittingly, revealed their three step manual: Disguise, dismiss, divert.
The Australian Federal Government has announced it is reviewing the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to which Australia is a party.
COVID-19 can increase liability for countries under international investment treaties. Developing countries face imminent challenges under such treaties.
Nigeria is undertaking series of reforms of the country’s bilateral investment treaties to attract responsible, inclusive, balanced and sustainable investments.
With the growing concern over the traditional ISDS system, it is highly unlikely that the AfCFTA will include an ISDS mechanism giving investors access to go to international arbitration under conventional international tribunals.
African states need to take a unified and proactive approach to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), in order to make a system that is fairer to Africa and more consistent.
Amidst the global risk of ISDS claims, it is incumbent to shed light on Bangladesh’s BIT structure and its feasibility to confront ISDS claims in the backdrop of Covid-19 regulatory space.
In the face of the increasing number of claims brought by investors against host states on the basis of BITs and the exorbitant amounts awarded to investors, Morocco has undertaken a review of its model BIT using a flexible and rational approach.
The EU Commission has launched a public consultation calling for comments on its initiative to improve the protection of intra-EU investment. This initiative could lead to the adoption of new rules enhancing investors’ rights vis-à-vis EU Member States and to the creation of new enforcement mechanisms for investors within the EU.
An updated European Commission proposal to reform the Energy Charter Treaty is falling short of what’s needed to reinstate governments’ “right to regulate” in areas like climate change, activists say.
This is Brazil’s 10th and India’s 4th bilateral investment agreement since both nations had adopted their Model Bilateral Investment Treaty.
The basis of a claim in ISDS is always the applicable international investment agreement. There would always be differences and inconsistencies with an appellate mechanism.
We civil society organizations and trade unions from the African continent express our concerns about the proposal presented by the European Union to establish a multilateral investment court and support further reaching reforms of ISDS.
The UNCITRAL Working Group III turned squarely to designing permanent institutions: a standing appellate mechanism and a multilateral investment court (MIC).