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.
Why retain ISDS, this neo-colonial vestige that is not supported by consistent evidence that it contributes to advancing development or the rule of law?
Our call to suspend all ISDS cases during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis.
OTP Bank has sued the Croatian government to recover about $34.60 million it lost during a mandatory conversion of Swiss franc-denominated loans to euro-based loans in 2015.
The agreement for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments between France and Colombia has entered into force, at the time of the pandemic-related economic crisis.
Expert Marcos Orellana walks us through the shadowy arbitration system, the Chevron case in particular, and what it all means for global climate action.
The Human and Environmental Development Agenda, Re:Common, Global Witness, and Corner House, have called on the Nigerian government to stand against Eni’s legal move over the oil processing license (OPL) 245.
Orange Group has instituted legal proceedings against Iraq in an attempt to claw back more than USD 400 million in investments it alleges were expropriated by the country’s regulator.
Eni plans to argue that the country’s failure to allow it to exploit an oilfield it acquired with Royal Dutch Shell nearly a decade ago breaches their investment agreement.
74 studies find robust evidence that effect of international investment agreements on foreign direct investment is so small as to be considered zero.
A complex set of international legal measures protecting the fossil fuel industry risks significantly increasing the cost of moving to green energy and tackling climate change, a new report reveals.
The German government writes that around 21.7 million euros have been spent on lawyers, expert witnesses and court fees.
The Indian government plans to contest the judgement on the Vodafone arbitration award in Hague.
Cairn is seeking full restitution for losses resulting from the expropriation of its investments in India in 2014.
India will try and keep its taxation laws out of the ambit of all Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and comprehensive economic pacts that it negotiates.
Indiana Resources has lodged a $95-million compensation claim against the government of Tanzania over the "illegal expropriation” of the Ntaka Hill nickel project.
KURUM company sued Albania at the International Court of Arbitration asking EUR 100 mln for termination of the contract of the container terminal in Durresi Harbor.
Vodafone Group Plc’s big win against the Indian government could set a precedent for similar arbitration cases, including the one initiated by Cairn Energy Plc.
Vodafone won an international arbitration case against the Indian government, ending one of the most high-profile disputes in the country involving a $2 billion tax claim.
Investors in renewable energy projects in Ukraine are considering legal action after feed-in tariffs for solar and onshore wind power plants were reduced retroactively to 2015, according to an expert.
It appears that investors are using investment treaties in ways that can significantly frustrate government efforts to effectively and adequately regulate public private partnerships in the public interest.