By Global Justice Now (2019)
A Q&A to deal with tricky questions about corporate courts and our campaign against them.
The Multilateral Investment Court locking in ISDS
By Friends of the Earth Europe (2017)
We have identified 10 key problems with the Multilateral Investment Court, in which corporations still enjoy unjustified privileges at the expense of people, the environment and our democracy.
Investment court system, ISDS in disguise: 10 reasons why the EU’s proposal doesn’t fix a flawed system
By Friends of the Earth Europe (2016)
The European Commission has proposed a new ’Investment Court System’ to replace the current investor to state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and other future investment deals. This briefing report identifies 10 key problems with the new proposals, which reflect how the rights of corporate investors are still privileged over citizens, enhancing the power of foreign investors in relation to sovereign states.
Investor-State Dispute Settlement in TTIP
By BEUC (2015)
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is an arbitration mechanism usually included in investment and (more recently) trade agreements. It empowers foreign investors to initiate proceedings against a state to obtain compensation for alleged violations of their investment rights as granted by the treaty.
Setting the record straight: debunking ten common defenses of controversial investor-state corporate privileges
By Public Citizen (2015)
Amid growing controversy over the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has declared that critiques of the system amount to mere “myths.” Yet, in attempt to counter the critiques, USTR’s ISDS defenses rely on false and misleading statements. Below we respond to 10 common defenses of ISDS from USTR.
Fact sheet on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)
By AFTINET (2015)
ISDS is not independent or impartial and lacks the basic standards of national legal systems. ISDS has no independent judiciary. Arbitrators are chosen from a pool of investment law experts who can continue to practice as investment law advocates. In Australia, and most national legal systems, judges cannot continue to be practising lawyers because of obvious conflicts of interest.