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.
Drafted by the Energy Charter Secretariat
South Korea will collect public opinions on the recently revised free trade agreement with the United States before sending it to the parliament for approval.
The Spanish group will seek an agreement with the country to recover normality at the Damietta plant.
Vietnam and the EU have concluded their discussions on an Investment Protection Agreement, which they decided to keep it separate from their free trade agreement.
Mexican billionaire Antonio del Valle has launched actions against the Spanish government for its role in the process of putting Banco Popular into resolution and subsequent sale for €1 to Santander.
Foreign investors in tourism have a long and successful history of using investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) under investment treaties.
The revised Dutch model BIT seems a missed opportunity to achieve a better balance between the rights and obligations of foreign investors.
Despite challenges, the experiences of South Africa and Brazil demonstrate that there is room for genuine reimagination of the investment regime, where the interests of investors are matched with the development concerns of host countries.
ConocoPhillips and Perenco try to stop £140m levy from sale of oilfields in key case for tax avoidance by multinationals.
A range of labour, health and environmental organisations are calling for a clause to be inserted into the CPTPP Amendment Bill that would prevent future governments from extending investor-state dispute settlement to countries seeking to join the agreement.
BBVA has requested arbitration under the investment agreement between Spain and Bolivia with respect to the transfer of BBVA Previsión AFP (Pension Fund Administrator) to the Government of Bolivia.
As states look back over decades of treaty practice, the expected benefits have not clearly materialized, whereas the costs have been unexpectedly high.
US energy company is seeking $350m in compensation in so-called ISDS case over gas turbines in Pilbara.
Facing multimillion dollar claims, many Latin American states have become critical of investment arbitration. A group of researchers building a database of legal and policy tools aims to change this.
Zimbabwe is still seeking to have annulled two Awards issued by a tribunal of the ICSID. The disputes concern the government’s expropriation of timber plantations which were first established by Rhodes’ BSAC.
On 29 July 1918, the British judiciary proffered the Empire’s most expressly and egregiously racist justification for the land dispossession of indigenous peoples. Today, an ICSID tribunal continues that mission. No matter which way Zimbabwean’s turn at the polls, they’re still paying for their invasion and occupation by Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa company...
Labor unions and workers’ rights advocates fear that the secretive RCEP agreement will further erode workers’ rights in the Asian region, while strengthening the hands of investors who may be able to sue governments for changing laws such as setting minimum wages, that would erode their profitability.
This is the fourth ISDS dispute this year in which the South Korean government is embroiled.
India’s Model BIT is "pro-state with limited rights to foreign investors" according to the US thinktank Brookings