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)

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.
Mining Watch | 12-May-2015
In anticipation of an imminent ruling from a little-known arbitration tribunal at the World Bank that could force El Salvador to pay Canadian-Australian mining firm OceanaGold US$301 million, a Salvadoran delegation is visiting Canada to discuss how investor-state arbitration threatens democratic decision-making, public health and the environment here and beyond our borders.
Belga | 7-May-2015
La proposition de la commissaire européenne au Commerce, Cecilia Malmström, pour améliorer les procédures d’arbitrage (ISDS) entre États et multinationales dans le cadre de l’accord de libre-échange UE/États-Unis a reçu un accueil mitigé mercredi au Parlement européen.
EurActiv | 7-May-2015
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström tried to convince MEPs that there are ways to keep the Investment-State Dispute Settlement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment partnership deal. But unimpressed lawmakers failed to greet it as a full-fledged reform.
Macleans | 6-May-2015
Mission accomplished? Not quite. American negotiations with Europe may trigger more changes to CETA
Korea Times | 6-May-2015
V.V. Veeder, a British national, has been appointed as the presiding arbitrator for a $4.7 billion international litigation between the Korean government and Dallas-based Lone Star Funds, sources said Tuesday.
Social Sciences Research Network | 6-May-2015
The European Commission’s most recent proposal for ISDS reflects a move away from fake reforms to something potentially more meaningful, but it is insufficient and unreliable, says legal expert Gus Van Harten.
Korea Herald | 4-May-2015
A former top financial official who advocated for Korea Exchange Bank’s breakaway from Lone Star has taken up a position in a law firm that represents the US buyout firm at a time when the firm is suing the Korean government for $4.6 billion in an investor-state dispute.
City Limits | 29-Apr-2015
"We cannot tell President Obama what to do. [But] our hard fought victories for protecting the lives of all New Yorkers will be at risk if he signs the TPP."
Washington Post | 28-Apr-2015
Obama leans hard into the idea that TPP’s ISDS will be drawn explicitly to prevent corporate gaming of the litigation process