Bilateral investment treaties have been a source of political controversy in recent years. This is clear from the alarming increase in the number of disputes between investors and governments.
Does the agreement reflect 21st century needs and standards?
The legality of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), including in the form of an Investment Court System (ICS), in EU trade agreements under EU law is a contentious issue among academics and legal experts.
This is one of the problems with this regime of investor rights. It confers enormous discretion on an elite corps of lawyers.
Corporations can still sue governments over public policy decisions they don’t like but the real lesson from the ISDS reforms, in fact, is that public opposition and political mobilization can change things.
Despite all the talk of reform from commissioner Malmstroem, the threat to democratic decision-making is as alive and dangerous as ever.
The European Commission and the Canadian Government have agreed to include a new approach on investment protection and investment dispute settlement in CETA.
The European Commission has proposed a new ’Investment Court System’ to replace the current investor to state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and other future investment deals.
Canada’s government has officially re-opened negotiations with India over a bilateral investment treaty the two sides nearly agreed upon almost a decade ago.
Bolivia’s experience has shown that attracting foreign investment does not by itself generate the expected development for host states and that, rather, it consists in a mechanism for financing and transferring resources from the South to the North.
The UNGPs set out a three-pillar framework: the state duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses.
The revised model text for bilateral investment treaties has addressed many concerns, but to avoid litigations, India must renegotiate existing treaties on the basis of the new norms.
The German Magistrates Association rejects the proposal of the European Commission to establish an investment court within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
India’s new model BIT text follows the trend of divergent approaches to investment treaty-making by focusing on a more defensive-minded strategy than in its prior treaties.
Experts from UNASUR met in the Uruguayan capital Montevideo in order to finalize and sign agreements regarding the proposed center for investigation of international settlement dispute cases.
Following the release in April of 2015 of a draft model investment treaty, the government of India unveiled a final version of its proposed negotiating text.
American mining corporation Newmont escaped the domestic processing requirement from Indonesia’s 2009 Mining Law. It achieved this by using a clause in a Dutch investment treaty.
EU Parliament adopts robust mechanism needed for Paris climate talks. Are European national leaders ready to act?
Why the Commission’s proposal for an “Investment Court System” still fails to address the key problems of foreign investors’ privileges
The Government plan to reassess the 64 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) that have been signed by Indonesia immediately.