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.
As a long-running dispute between Exxon Mobil Corp. and the government of Canada reached a multimillion-dollar settlement, lawyers for ExxonMobil announced.
Brazil construction company Odebrecht SA has taken Peru to arbitration over a failed $2 billion investment in a gas pipeline.
The ride-hailing firm said its initial calculations suggest damages from suspending its service in Colombia will exceed $250 million.
The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes has approved Pakistan’s petition for a review in the Reko Diq case in which the country was slapped with a $6 billion fine.
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.
Pakistan approved waiving off all port dues/charges amounting to Rs194,951,059 on 31-1-2020 or till the vessels leave the port accruing against Karkey.
CETA strengthens the legal position of North American companies in the EU and exposes European governments and taxpayers to potential claims.
The UNCITRAL Working Group III turned squarely to designing permanent institutions: a standing appellate mechanism and a multilateral investment court (MIC).
India inked an Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Treaty with Brazil – the first one after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Government in December 2015 approved a new template for such bilateral pacts.
When Vietnam signalled it would claim the tax due, oil giant ConocoPhillips issued a pre-emptive legal strike using an arbitration process under the UK-Vietnam bilateral investment treaty.
The US government used to be the chief proponent of strong investor protection clauses in international trade deals. No longer. What happened?
Boris Johnson’s plan to diverge from EU rules threatens crucial environmental regulations.
The energy company Vattenfall is demanding compensation from the Federal Republic of Germany. The costs for the arbitration proceedings could exceed 20 million euros this year.
Despite debates about crisis in investment treaty arbitration, most emerging market economies are concluding BITs that provide for ISDS and emerging market multinational companies appear to welcome ISDS.
The dispute is related to Canada-based company Montero Mining’s investment in the Wigu Hill rare earth element project.
Australian mining company Indiana Resources has become the second company in a week to declare a dispute with the Tanzanian government over repossessed retention licences.
India has a faced a number of claims from foreign investors over the years under the BIT regime. It is presently engaged in over 20 investor-State disputes, with a number of them revolving around retrospective tax claims.
NAFTA 2.0 cleared another hurdle as the U.S. Senate approved the trade deal with bipartisan support.
KTurbo claims US government violated terms of KORUS FTA, after US court judged that the company violated place of origin rules.
South Korea has concluded no fewer than 99 investment agreements that allows paper companies to take advantage of investor-state dispute system.