The Protocol draws significantly on the Brazilian model investment agreement, which stands out for departing from the traditional design of Bilateral Investment Treaties, particularly by excluding the possibility of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS).
Belgium has requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice on the ’Investment Court System’ included in the EU-Canada trade deal, to determine if the ICS is compatible with the European Treaties
The data lead to the inexorable conclusion that the European Commission’s declaration that “investment treaty arbitration is dead” is wrong by a ratio of over 1:3,000.
The United Nations has agreed to initiate work on possible multilateral reform of investment dispute settlement including the possible establishment of a multilateral investment court.
The JIN includes the definition of investor and investment, exclusion of taxation measures, Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), National Treatment (NT) and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment, expropriation, essential security interests and settlement of disputes between an investor and a contracting party,
Governments at the Centre and in the States must urgently invest in building their own capacity to handle the new generation of international investment arbitration.
Talks deadlocked on investor dispute settlement.
Brazil has never approved any BITs nor did it sign the ICSID Convention but it continued to receive significant amounts of foreign direct investment (FDI), consolidating its position as one of the world’s top recipients of FDI
International investment agreement (IIA) reform has made significant progress.
The investor-state arbitration landscape is shifting under our feet. The utility and legitimacy of traditional investor-state arbitration have come under fire, but states have not converged on a viable alternative.
‘IIA, which has a pro-investor bias, aims to protect only capital and not labour,’ said Saurabh Garg, the Joint Secretary in Indian Finance Ministry’s Department of Economic Affairs.
The proposed Multilateral Investment Court would give large corporations an exclusive justice system.
The treaty is an important attempt by two developing countries to move toward a new generation of BITs fully aligned with the evolution of international law.
While the debate on the treaty regulating business impact on human rights is likely to continue for a while longer, some recent developments in international investment law seem to be moving forward on international human rights law obligations for businesses
While India and Indonesia may have withdrawn from existing BITs, this does not necessarily leave foreign investors without any protection.
A clean break is needed to restore trust, but these stiff tests must be met.
Most have expired; partners unwilling to renew them under Finance Ministry’s model draft
Fresh investments by European companies in India and vice versa after April 1 won’t enjoy legal protection under any bilateral arrangement, as India has decided not to accede to requests by the European Union.
In the transition to its new approach to investor protection, India has sought to terminate its existing BITs with individual EU Members. Now the European Commission is pressuring India to extend those existing treaties.