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.

No al TTIP | 22-Jan-2019
Coincidiendo con el inicio del Foro Económico Mundial en Davos 2019, una coalición de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, movimientos sociales y sindicatos de más de 18 países de la UE lanzan la campaña ‘Derechos para las personas, obligaciones para las multinacionales. Stop ISDS’.
European Commission | 18-Jan-2019
The EU and its Member States submitted two papers to the UN Working Group under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
New Europe | 18-Jan-2019
22 of the 28 EU nations have committed to terminate their bilateral investment treaties and use their influence as home states and respondent-states to notify tribunals of the non-arbitrability of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and Energy Charter Treaty claims.
IISD | 18-Jan-2019
Las disposiciones de responsabilidad social corporativa no cambian de ninguna manera los deberes sociales o éticos corporativos de las empresas en obligaciones legales exigibles en los procedimientos de litigio, pero sin duda podrían moralizar aún más el uso del arbitraje basado en tratados.
CIAR Global | 18-Jan-2019
El pasado 15 de enero, los Estados miembros de la UE emitieron una declaración en la que se comprometen a rescindir los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión (TBIs) entre ellos como consecuencia jurídica del caso Achmea.
IISD | 17-Jan-2019
Des dispositions de responsabilité sociétale des entreprises ne transforment aucunement les devoirs sociétaux ou éthiques des entreprises en obligations juridiques opposables dans le cadre d’une procédure contentieuse mais pourraient permettre de moraliser sans doute davantage le recours à l’arbitrage sur le fondement des traités.
IISD | 17-Jan-2019
Corporate social responsibility provisions do not change the corporate or ethical duties of companies into enforceable legal obligations in the context of dispute settlement proceedings but they could help significantly moralize the use of treaty-based arbitration.
Business Recorder | 17-Jan-2019
The federal cabinet is expected to approve supplementary grant of $ 1.37 million on to contest cases filed by M/s Karkey in courts of different countries as Pakistan’s assets abroad are facing "attachment" threat.
Jeune Afrique | 16-Jan-2019
En mai, le Cirdi a débouté Veolia mais le groupe français assure vouloir poursuivre son action au Caire afin que sa filiale puisse être dûment indemnisée.
European Papers | 15-Jan-2019
If the European Court of Justice applied in Opinion 1/17 the same test it used in Achmea, it would probably conclude that the CETA tribunal is not compatible with EU law.