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.

Clarín | 25-Aug-2017
A nueve años de la estatización de las AFJP, la gigante estadounidense Metlife y dos de sus subsidiarias argentinas (MetLife Servicios y MetLife Seguros de Retiro) presentaron una demanda contra el país ante el Ciadi, el tribunal arbitral del Banco Mundial, por las inversiones que la Argentina nacionalizó.
Ámbito | 25-Aug-2017
Hace una semana el organismo había resuelto un caso (Autopistas del Sol) pero se abrió uno nuevo por la nacionalización de las AFJP. La mayoría es por reestatizaciones y la salida de la convertibilidad. Sólo Maduro generó más litigiosidad.
Washington Examiner | 25-Aug-2017
More than 100 associations representing US businesses are teaming up to encourage the Trump administration to maintain ISDS protections as it renegotiates NAFTA, writes the head of the US oil and natural gas industry trade group
FT | 25-Aug-2017
Three top US business groups have fired a warning shot at the Trump administration, threatening to drop their support for its renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement if a controversial investment protection provision is abandoned.
The Hindu | 24-Aug-2017
A committee in India, led by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, has lost an opportunity to push for the recalibration of the country’s BIT regime
La Jornada | 23-Aug-2017
Es preferible para México que no exista el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) a permitir que sea eliminado el capítulo 19, referido a la solución de controversias, como demanda el gobierno de Estados Unidos, coincidieron investigadores y especialistas.
WSJ | 23-Aug-2017
US trade officials are putting together a proposal to let the US withdraw from a corporate arbitration system at the heart of the North American Free Trade Agreement, upsetting big American companies that say the system protects their investments overseas.
Global Legal Post | 21-Aug-2017
Foreign investors may have a case against the UK government if profits suffer post-Brexit, says Bryan Cave’s Maria Gritsenko.
Hankyoreh | 21-Aug-2017
The Moon administration needs to stand up to Trump with the confidence of a party ready to accept termination of the agreement, writes The Hankyoreh
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 19-Aug-2017
Is there inconsistency among the tribunals in the solar energy cases?