What are states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)? To help answer that question, we have put together four posts that compile the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions.
The takeaway from the UNCITRAL’s process for its so-called "reform" discussions is that lawyers making millions in ISDS cases are welcomed, while the voices of the millions of people whose lives are harmed by ISDS cases brought by multinational corporations are barely an afterthought.
The investment treaty system is likely to be marked by the co-existence of investor-state arbitration and an international investment court, leading to pluralism rather than a dichotomous either/or choice or a clear before-and-after moment.
This Working Group was not “business as usual” because it was much more government-led than is typical of UNCITRAL Working Groups and it started out with a vote instead of conforming to UNCITRAL’s typical approach of working by consensus.
Malgré des difficultés, l’expérience de l’Afrique du Sud et du Brésil démontrent qu’il est possible de repenser complètement le régime de l’investissement, et de faire en sorte que les intérêts des investisseurs correspondent aux besoins en développement des pays d’accueil.
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.
El financiamiento de litigios por terceros (third-party litigation funding, TPF) es una industria en rápida expansión conformada por inversores especuladores que invierten en una demanda jurídica reclamando el control de un caso y una contingencia en la recuperación