investor-state disputes | ISDS
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) refers to a way of handling conflicts under international investment agreements whereby companies from one party are allowed to sue the government of another party. This means they can file a complaint and seek compensation for damages. Many BITs and investment chapters of FTAs allow for this if the investor’s expectation of a profit has been negatively affected by some action that the host government took, such as changing a policy. The dispute is normally handled not in a public court but through a private abritration panel. The usual venues where these proceedings take place are the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (World Bank), the International Chamber of Commerce, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law or the International Court of Justice.
ISDS is a hot topic right now because it is being challenged very strongly by concerned citizens in the context of the EU-US TTIP negotiations, the TransPacific Partnership talks and the CETA deal between Canada and the EU.
As the UK regains full responsibility for its trade and investment policy post-Brexit, it must seriously consider its approach to international investment protection.
Negotiators have ruled out an overhaul of private courts that allow energy companies to sue national governments when climate change policies hurt their profits.
Tensions are likely to surface between the public-policy directions of governments managing a challenging economic climate and foreign investors’ private interests.
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.
Indonesian CSOs assesses the national economic recovery strategy by strengthening policies economic liberalization focusing only on investment and exports will only be increasingly open space for corporate monopoly on economic resources.
A British oil and gas company is using a controversial energy treaty to sue Slovenia, after being required to carry out an environmental impact assessment
Australian mining firm Prairie Mining has launched international arbitration proceedings against Poland, claiming damages for the alleged hindering of the development of its two coal mines located in the country.
The hegemon aspirants in international investment law have already, and perhaps unwittingly, revealed their three step manual: Disguise, dismiss, divert.
Pakistan is seeking the reversal of a $5.8 billion penalty imposed by an international tribunal for denying a mining lease to an Australian company, saying that paying the fine would hinder its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
The 1991 Energy Charter Treaty must be profoundly overhauled in order to remove all “obsolete” provisions protecting fossil fuel investments and hindering climate action, lawmakers from across Europe said.
The Japanese government is blocking reform of a treaty that allows energy companies to sue nation states when climate policies affect their profits.
Is it possible to take urgently needed action on climate change while simultaneously protecting the fossil fuel industry, the very cause of climate imbalance?
With state measures in response to COVID-19 being compounded by an already difficult economic environment for investors, they may have little choice but to challenge those measures.
Australia, with its many Bilateral Investment Treaties and FTAs, contributes to a system of treaty shopping by mining companies looking to sue governments over unfavourable decisions.
The Australian Federal Government has announced it is reviewing the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to which Australia is a party.
Seclink Technologies, funded by the royal families of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, plans to seek arbitration over the issue under the Bilateral Investment Promotion Protection Agreement.
There are only two types of farmers that can be compensated for both land and improvements on farms. On of them is farmers whose land was protected by Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements.
Barrick Gold Corp has lost a court challenge in Papua New Guinea over rights to a highlands gold mine and intends to appeal to the country’s Supreme Court.
Knežević and the Atlas Group’s affected companies have the right to initiate arbitration proceedings against Montenegro, according to the arbitration rules of UNCITRAL, ICC or ICSID.
Canada’s Barrick Gold said it would challenge the Papua New Guinea government alleged move to grant a 20-year lease for the Porgera gold mine to a state-backed firm.