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.
Indigenous communities call for international solidarity to support for the vindication of rights of the comunities and peoples affected by corporate impunity and their struggle for a dignified life.
Governments worldwide need the policy space now to issue economic support packages and protect their public health systems, without worrying that their budgets could face even more strain from an all-consuming wave of arbitration.
Cyprus-based offshore EP Wind Project (Rom) Six Ltd claims that Romania has breached the Energy Charter Treaty.
The dispute with Crystallex follows a ruling by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Icsid), an international arbitration institution set up by the World Bank.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led States to adopt various public health measures that adversely affect foreign investors and exacerbate broader economic issues. In this climate, there is significant potential for disputes under the ECT.
Investors nonetheless may be well advised to consider restructuring intra-EU investments through third countries to ensure treaty protection for the future.
Uniper is using a controversial investor dispute system to claim up to €1 billion compensation for being forced to close a coal power station early.
As governments take action to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and prevent economic collapse, they could face multi-million dollar lawsuits.
Research claims top law firms are preparing to ‘cash in’ on the pandemic by helping corporations sue states for measures that have impaired profits.
Shareholders in the now defunct Russian oil giant Yukos have seized Netherlands-based assets of two well-known vodka brands controlled by the Russian state in their most recent legal move to obtain $57 billion in damages from Moscow.
On February 18, The Hague Court of Appeal reinstated an order of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which obliged Russia to pay more than $50 bln to the companies associated with former Yukos shareholders in 2014.
The Energy Charter Treaty takes an axe to climate action.
The dispute for snow crabs in Svalbard may set the stage for another dispute concerning the abundant hydrocarbon reserves located in the same waters.
Spanish contractor Ortiz Construcciones y Proyectos S.A. lost an investment treaty arbitration against Algeria brought before ICSID.
On 5 May 2020, 23 Member States of the EU entered into an Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union.
A global tragedy at a high cost for taxpayers.
We call on the world community for an immediate moratorium on all arbitration claims by private corporations against governments using international investment treaties.
There is an imminent threat of claims arising from emergency measures, so countries should review how investor-state disputes are handled.
23 EU Member States signed an agreement for the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties.
