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.
Ecuador had denounced the ICSID Convention in 2009. The convention establishes the institutional and legal framework for resolving international investment disputes.
To seriously address the roots and causes of migration, it is urgent to dismantle the neoliberal rules which grant excessive privileges to transnational corporations.
Business lobby groups started lobbying the European Commission to create a new parallel justice system, similar to the old intra-EU BITs, but compatible with EU law.
Nigerian labour unions and civil society organizations have urged the government not to assent to the ECT, explaining that the Treaty contains provisions for an Investor-State Dispute System (ISDS), which accords investors obscene privileges.
The Nigerian Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, has called for the establishment and strengthening of more arbitration institutions in Africa in line with international standards.
Ecuador has 60 days to make the payment and has already contacted Perenco to start negotiations. In 2020, the country inked a $6.5 billion emergency deal with the IMF.
The Ecuadorean country will have to face a millionaire sum for Perenco oil company after a ruling by a panel formed under the auspices of the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
We call on the Australian Government to exclude ISDS from the Australia-UK FTA as has been done in the Australia-EU FTA and the RCEP.
Campaigners concerned by controversial plans for tribunals where firms can seek compensation for effect of government policies.
The arbitral award has condoned the tax avoidance scheme adopted by Cairn Energy.
The AfCFTA Secretariat has established a dispute settlement body, that will function as a full-court with the right mechanisms and structures in place to settle trade disputes.
The perverse interplay of BITs with double taxation avoidance agreements has been bleeding India from the much-needed tax revenues.
The dispute is about the assets it lost in Crimea, including the Donuzlav wind farm, which is now located in the temporarily occupied territory.
Finley Resources alleges Mexico violated investor protections under the NAFTA trade pact by failing to honor agreements.
The shadowy parallel court system of major trade agreements makes it difficult for countries to ban broad-spectrum insecticides.
The government of Turkmenistan has won $500 million claim brought before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes by a Turkish construction company.
The inaugural meeting of the dispute settlement body of the AfCFTA signals the readiness of this infrastructure to take up any disputes that may arise in the course of trading amongst the member States.
US commodity trader Gerald Group will pay Sierra Leone $20 million and cede a 10% stake in an iron ore project as part of the resolution to a nearly two-year dispute that led to the shutdown of production.
America Movil said the World Bank’s ICSID tribunal has ruled against the company in its dispute with Colombia and ordered it to pay $2.2 million to cover the costs of the case.