Energy & environment

Most investor-state disputes (ISDS) have concerned environmental matters. Corporations are using the ISDS system found in trade and investment agreements to challenge environmental policies. As of end of 2019, 41% of all ICSID cases were energy and natural resources-related.

Most well-known cases include:

• Lone Pine Resources (US) vs. Canada: the investor challenged Quebec’s moratorium on the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas. The provincial government declared the moratorium in 2011 so as to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the extraction method widely accused of leaching chemicals and gases into groundwater and the air. Case pending (NAFTA invoked).

• Bilcon (US) vs. Canada: the US industry challenged Canadian environmental requirements affecting their plans to open a basalt quarry and a marine terminal in Nova Scotia. In 2015 the ISDS tribunal decided that the government’s decision hindered the investors’ expectations. Bilcon won and received US$7 million in damages, plus interest (NAFTA invoked).

• Vattenfall (Sweden) vs. Germany: in 2007 the Swedish energy corporation was granted a provisional permit to build a coal-fired power plant near the city of Hamburg. In an effort to protect the Elbe river from the waste waters dumped from the plant, environmental restrictions were added before the final approval of its construction. The investor initiated a dispute, arguing it would make the project unviable. The case was ultimately settled in 2011, with the city of Hamburg agreeing to the lowering of environmental standards (ECT invoked).

Photo: Kris Krug / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

(March 2020)

Foley Hoag | 30-Jan-2019
Anglo American loses $400 million claim against Venezuela over an expropriated ferronickel processing facility.
Express Tribune | 29-Jan-2019
Pakistan is making a last-ditch effort for an out-of-court settlement in the Reko Diq mining case, wherein the complainant company whose contract was terminated is claiming $11.43 billion in damages in an international tribunal.
SSRN | 24-Jan-2019
International investment law overlooks the interests of local communities. This is especially troublesome in foreign investment in natural resources and infrastructure, where the local communities are the most affected and whose harm often leads to disputes.
Asia Times | 23-Jan-2019
Pakistan may have to pay a damages claim worth $11 billion after losing the infamous Reko Diq case to an Australian mining company.
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.
Lexology | 9-Jan-2019
The Ukrainian Supreme Court refused recognition and enforcement of the emergency award in Ukraine, based on the grounds that enforcement of the emergency award would be contrary to the public policy of Ukraine