North America

Canada and the United States have signed about 180 investment agreements.

They are both party to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico. Sixty-seven disputes were launched under NAFTA.

NAFTA was recently renegotiated and replaced by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that was signed in November 2018 and is yet to enter in force. The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism between the US and Canada, and between Mexico and Canada has been removed – even though it is included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to which both Mexico and Canada belong. Only limited claims are allowed between the US and Mexico, after exhaustion of local remedies. But the ISDS mechanism has been maintained between the two countries for claims pertaining to Mexico’s oil and gas sector.

The US is also party to the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), with six Central American states. US investors have initiated all 11 known CAFTA disputes.

Canada has an investment treaty with China and is party to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union. CETA includes a revised ISDS mechanism, the investment court system, which has been critiqued for not addressing the core of the problem behind the mechanism.

US investors have extensively used the ISDS mechanism. They have initiated around 180 disputes, over 17% of all known cases, making the US the most frequent home state of investors. The US has never lost an ISDS case.

Canadian investors have initiated about 50 disputes and Canada has been the fourth most frequent target among ‘developed’ states (9th globally), with 29 cases.

Photo: Public Citizen

(April 2020)

Lexology | 19-Jun-2015
A consensus is clearly forming around changes and adjustments needed to reform ISDS, but the main stakeholders – businesses and governments – have yet to make a clear stand, argue Adrian-Catalin Bulboaca and Marius Iliescu
rabble.ca | 9-Jun-2015
What do we call it when Ottawa signs a deal with an unelected regime that would prevent any future elected government in a small African nation from changing its laws regulating Canadian-owned mines for almost two decades?
| 5-Jun-2015
There has never been any doubt that the United States, and especially the US Congress, wields ultimate power over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ars Technica UK | 3-Jun-2015
The German federal government has admitted that an EU country’s arts policies could lead to it being sued by foreign corporations before investor tribunals under trade agreements being negotiated with Canada and the US.
EESC | 29-May-2015
The European Economic and Social Committee, in its opinion adopted on 27 May, opposes the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), as it believes such a system has the potential to derail both agreements.
Congressional Research Service | 28-May-2015
This report for US Congress answers frequently asked questions about US international investment agreements including provisions for investor-state dispute settlement.
Korea Herald | 25-May-2015
While the South Korean government is facing its second international arbitration under the investor-state dispute settlement system, civic groups are demanding that the details should be made public as they could cost several billion dollars of taxpayers’ money.
| 15-May-2015
An international tribunal began hearing a multi-billion dollar case Friday that the US private equity firm Lone Star filed against South Korea’s government over tax and other disputes surrounding its asset sell-offs in Korea.
Yonhap | 14-May-2015
An international tribunal will begin hearing a multi-billion dollar case this week that the US private equity firm Lone Star filed against South Korea’s government over tax and other disputes surrounding its asset sell-offs in Korea.
AFJ | 13-May-2015
A group of legal and economic luminaries have signed a letter to Congressional leaders urging them to oppose Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in proposed trade deals.