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).
The US government used to be the chief proponent of strong investor protection clauses in international trade deals. No longer. What happened?
Several states participating in the UNCITRAL process have already adopted viable alternatives to ISDS.
The European Commission today presented to the Council four proposals for specific rules putting in place the Investment Court System provisions in the EU-Canada trade deal.
Campaigners are urging reform of an obscure system that allows coal, oil and gas companies to sue governments if climate policies hit their profits.
Multinational companies will increasingly file massive cases against host countries when climate change policies affect their profits, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.
But legality should not be our main concern here. There are much better approaches to international investment and we should be considering them.
A permanent Multilateral Investment Court pushed by the European Union could make ISDS worse by scaling it up.
ISDS lawyers appear to hold administrative positions within the working group and are represented in large numbers in the advisory bodies that have been established for the working group.
Advocates of ISDS (industrialised countries and lawyers from the ‘arbitration industry’) dominate the running of the Working Group and its advisory bodies. Civil society is underrepresented.
USMCA bears many resemblances to NAFTA, which has been cited as a driver of low-wage corporate outsourcing.
Tanzania has embarked on process of regulation of its foreign investment regime by enacting legislation, which exclude international arbitration.
The EU has proposed to reform the investor-state-dispute-settlement system, a move that could further complicate negotiations with China over a bilateral investment agreement, as well as their dialogue on the Belt and Road Initiative’s implementation in Europe.
Combined with the dispute settlement mechanism of international arbitration, investment treaties have been transformed intol "weapons of legal destruction."
The UNCITRAL process runs a real risk of producing middle-ground solutions that will fail to address the fundamental flaws of the ISDS system and will only further institutionalise and re-legitimise the system.
More than 300 civil society groups and trade unions urged governments participating in United Nations meetings in Vienna to completely overhaul the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system.
Our analysis of the leaked draft code of conduct of CETA tribunals reveals that the same people known as ISDS arbitrators and counsellors will now take over CETA tribunals.
“We call on our governments to either address the real reasons why ISDS is fundamentally flawed or to abandon its ‘reform’ agenda that is designed to reinforce and re-legitimise a self-serving investment dispute system.”