bilaterals.org logo
bilaterals.org logo

Investment

One of the most remarkable recent developments in international law is the exponential growth of International Investment Agreements (IIAs). An IIA is a treaty between countries to deal with issues concerning the protection, promotion and liberalization of cross-border investments. The most common types of IIAs are standalone Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that contain investment chapters.

Although not precisely defined, a BIT is a legally binding agreement between two countries that establishes reciprocal protection and promotion of investments in both countries. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) defines BITs as “agreements between two countries for the reciprocal encouragement, promotion and protection of investments in each other’s territories by companies based in either country.” The countries signing BITs com¬mit themselves to following specific standards on the treatment of foreign investments within their jurisdiction. If there is a breach of such commitments, BITs provide expansive procedures for the resolution of disputes.

It is fair to say that BITs have emerged as the primary source of international investment law to protect and promote cross-border investment flows. The first BIT was signed between Germany and Pakistan in 1959. Today, there are more than 3,000 BITs in existence globally, with the great majority having been concluded since 1990. Almost every country in the world has signed at least one BIT.

These treaties originated from the desire of capital-exporting developed countries to seek protection for investors and their investments in capital-importing developing countries. However, the underlying interests and power relations have changed considerably in recent years due to the rise of South-South Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows. A num¬ber of developing countries, especially the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, In¬dia, China and South Africa – are increasingly emerging as important outward investors. The number of BITs between developing countries has grown remarkably since 2004. With the changing pattern of global investment flows, the landscape of BITs is quickly evolving.

Paradoxically, it seems that the current BIT regime is at a crossroads, in spite of the rapid proliferation of treaties in recent years. There are signs of growing unease with the current regime across countries and regions. To a large extent, this unease has arisen due to frequent use of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms under BITs, which allow investors to directly sue host state governments before international arbitral tribunals for alleged violations of treaty provisions.

The growing number of investor claims against sovereign states challenging a wide array of public policy decisions and regulatory measures has evoked deep concerns about the potential costs associated with investment treaties. The vague terms (such as ‘fair and equitable treatment,’ ‘indirect expropriation’ and ‘umbrella clause’) and other ambiguities can result in expansive interpretations by arbitral tribunals, leading to substantial monetary claims by foreign investors while unduly restricting regulatory space in the form of ‘regulatory chill.’ The risk of regulatory chill is very real, as a wide range of policy and regulatory measures (from taxation to the plain packaging of tobacco products to the disposal of hazardous waste) have all been challenged by foreign investors in the recent past.

The increasing use of ISDS mechanisms also highlights the lack of balance between public rights and private interests under the framework of a BIT. The current BITs regime has failed to address the balance of rights and responsibilities of foreign investors as it offers numerous legal rights for investors without requiring corresponding responsibilities for them. In both policy and academic circles, legitimate questions are being raised on the cost and procedure of arbitration, expansive interpretations by arbitral tribunals and the inconsistency of awards.

Both developed and developing countries are paying far greater attention today to the scope of their treaty obligations and, now more than ever before, are seeking a better balance between investor rights and the right to regulate in the public interest. Increasingly the existing treaty regime is considered irrelevant in terms of addressing emerging social, economic, environmental and developmental challenges, both at national and global levels.

There is hardly any empirical evidence to prove that BITs alone result in increased investment flows. At best, BITs could be considered as one factor among many in creating a favourable investment climate for foreign investors in a host country.

Therefore a number of countries have been revisiting their BITs program since the early 2000s. Some countries are clarifying the language used in BITs in order to bring uniformity and coherence in treaty interpretations while others are terminating their existing treaties in the wake of public outcry over arbitration notices served by foreign companies demanding billions of dollars in compensation for the alleged violation of BITs.

The decisions taken by these countries to roll back their BIT commitments represent a significant development and should be viewed in the much broader context of attempts made by other countries to revisit their BIT regime and to explore innovative policy solutions to tackle the problems posed by the current BIT regime, as well as to improve the governance of cross-border investment flows.

Contributed by Kavaljit Singh (Madhyam) and Burghard Ilge (Both Ends). Excerpt from Rethinking bilateral investment treaties.

last update: March 2017

Photo: Transnational Institute


SK Innovation considers arbitration proceedings against Peruvian government
SK Innovation is considering initiating international arbitration proceedings against the Peruvian government for blocking the company’s exit from Camisea Gas Project in Peru.
Boholiubov, Kolomoisky intend to file $23 mln suit against the United States with ICSID for forfeiture actions targeting their assets – media
US Optima Ventures intend to file a lawsuit against the United States seeking compensation of $23 million in response to two civil forfeiture actions targeting their assets in Louisville.
Google could use ISDS to sue Australia for millions over regulation for payment of news content
Google’s Singapore subsidiary could use a controversial ISDS provision in the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement to demand millions in compensation over proposed Australian regulation for payment of news content.
France puts EU withdrawal from Energy Charter Treaty on the table
The European Union and its member states should draw the consequences of the current stalemate in multilateral talks aimed at reforming the Energy Charter Treaty and consider a coordinated withdrawal, Paris has said
German energy giant RWE uses the Energy Charter Treaty to attack Dutch climate action
RWE has filed an arbitration claim against the Netherlands, seeking compensation for the Dutch decision to phase-out electricity production from coal by 2030.
Banks agree to end action against Croatia in loan conversion dispute
Six banks have agreed not to take legal action against Croatia over its conversion of Swiss franc loans into euros in 2015 at the lenders’ expense.
India may offer Cairn oilfield against $1.4 billion arbitration award
For a government struggling to find revenue to boost a COVID-19 battered economy, options of appeal against the arbitration award are limited and it may not have the financial bandwidth for such a payout.
Table of foreign investor-state cases and claims under NAFTA and other US “trade deals”
ISDS tribunals have ordered governments to pay corporations more than $989 million in compensation after ISDS attacks launched just under U.S. agreements.
The status of investor-state arbitration in Latin America in 2021
Last year saw a wave of cases against Latin American states, driven in particular, but not exclusively, by a large number of claims filed against Peru, Colombia and Mexico. This wave is likely to continue in 2021.
VI court freezes assets in $6b case
A Virgin Islands court has frozen shares in two hotels belonging to Pakistan’s national airline to enforce a $6 billion award levied through the World Bank’s ICSID.

    Links


  • ECT’s dirty secrets
    The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) grants corporations in the energy sector enormous power to sue states at international investment tribunals.
  • EFILA
    The European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA) has been established in Brussels to promote the knowledge of all aspects of EU and international investment law, including arbitration, at the European level
  • Energy Charter Treaty: Investment dispute settlement cases
    The Energy Charter Secretariat has compiled a list of investment dispute settlement cases and this information is updated regularly.
  • Golden Toilet Brush Awards
    Vote for which of these corporations deserve the coveted Golden Toilet Brush for corporate impunity.
  • ICSID
    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is an autonomous international organisation, linked to the World Bank. It is the most ’referred to’ arbitration facility for disputes under bilateral trade and investment agreements, with its own set of rules and procedures.
  • IISD
    The International Institute for Sustainable Development is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st century problems.
  • Investment Treaty News
    ITN is a web-based platform for discussion and debate, as well as providing regular journalistic reporting on developments and trends in international investment law, hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  • ISDS Impactos
    Los impactos del sistema de protección de inversiones en América Latina
  • ISDS: Corporate attacks on the public interest
    Public Citizen website about ISDS, including petition to US government
  • italaw
    Comprehensive and free database on investment treaties, international investment law and investor-state arbitration.
  • Mapping investment treaties
    Discover patterns of consistency and innovation in the bilateral investment treaty universe
  • Network for Justice in Global Investment
    The Network for Justice in Global Investment is a joint effort by citizens and organizations in a variety of countries to challenge one of the most anti-democratic aspects of the global economic order – the rules governing international investment.
  • Red Carpet Courts
    10 stories of how the rich and powerful hijacked justice
  • Reprenons le pouvoir !
    Site présentant quelques cas d’ISDS et de déni de justice de manière interactive.
  • Stop ISDS
    Corporations have too much power. It’s time to take it back from them!
  • The Chevron Pit
    A blog maintained by the team suing Chevron for the oil giant’s human rights problems in Ecuador and across the world
  • UNCITRAL
    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law is a body under the UN General Assembly mandated to unfiy international trade law. Disputes between investors and states under many FTAs and BITs are arbitrated, in private, according to UNCITRAL rules. UNCITRAL itself does not administer arbitrations.
  • UNCTAD BIT database
    UNCTAD maintains the most comprehensive database of BITs online
  • UNCTAD ISDS database
    UNCTAD’s comprehensive database of ISDS cases
  • We won’t give up Rosia Montana!
    Romania’s new government wants to give the green light to the Rosia Montana gold mine in return for a deal with Gabriel Resources dropping its ISDS arbitration case against the government.​ Take action now!