Investment treaty arbitration is often expected to focus on technical issues. In practice, however, domestic political discussions and processes can have a major impact on investment disputes. The authors map out the variety of state conduct characterized by tribunals as politically motivated or influenced. They also examine the different ways in which arbitral tribunals have responded to host state conduct resulting from domestic political considerations.
The April 2019 deliberations on multilateral ISDS reform at UNCITRAL Working Group III were due to tackle a series of questions that emerged in Phase 2 of the process. This piece breaks down why the scope of these discussions should be expanded to include important concerns raised by developing countries, and describes three core issues that must not be ignored. These involve the right to participation by affected parties; the rule of law and domestic courts’ jurisdiction; and the chilling of sovereign states’ authority and responsibility to govern.
Enhancing Environmental Protection in International Investment Law Through the Integration of International Civil Liability Principles
Investor–state arbitration has repeatedly proven ineffective in addressing environmental damages that host states suffer as a result of investment activities. This piece examines what lessons can be learned from international civil liability conventions, which are specifically designed to ensure victims’ compensation in cases of environmental harm. The author then explores which principles from these conventions could be adapted for use in investment treaties.
Protecting Social Rights Using the Amicus Curiae Procedure in Investment Arbitration: A smokescreen against third parties?
Arguments submitted by an amicus curiae (a “friend of the court”) have become increasingly common in investment arbitration. Many of these arguments deal with internationally recognized social rights, such as the right to water or food. This piece considers the restrictive conditions on amici curiae admission, the frequent reference to social rights issues in amici briefs, and the challenges in presenting these social rights arguments. The author advances possible actions that amici and states can take to make their social rights arguments more effective in an investment law context.
Twenty-two EU member states endorsed a political declaration on January 15, 2019, where they announced a series of actions involving existing intra-EU BITs and upcoming or ongoing investment arbitration.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has weighed in on the European Commission’s recommendation for a European Council decision to launch negotiations on the proposed MIC, supporting discussions on ISDS reform while noting areas for improvement.
CJEU Advocate General Yves Bot issued a non-binding opinion on January 29, 2019, deeming that the ICS included in the Canada–EU CETA is compatible with EU law. Bot assessed the ICS against the EU Treaty, the TFEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
On December 21, 2018, the United Nations General Assembly has given its approval to a new “Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation,” which aims to answer past concerns by many countries over how to enforce mediation settlement agreements involving multiple countries.
The European Union’s new framework for screening FDI is due to take effect in April 2019, with the text now published in the EU’s Official Journal. The framework allows both EU member states and the European Commission until October 2020 to enact the changes required.
Ministers from the 16 countries negotiating RCEP gathered in Siem Reap, Cambodia, on March 2 for an intersessional meeting to take stock of negotiations and reaffirm their revised goal of concluding the talks this year.
The CPTPP entered into force on December 30, 2018, when it took effect for Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore. Vietnam followed suit on January 14, 2019.
ASEAN economic ministers are due to meet in Thailand this month, where they will sign a new protocol that would revise their existing, ASEAN-wide investment agreement, as well as their new ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement (ATISA). Negotiations to update both agreements concluded in late 2018.
Australia and Indonesia have now signed their Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA), bringing to a close a negotiating process that began in November 2010. The two countries signed the agreement on March 4, 2019. The IA-CEPA also includes an investment chapter and four related annexes, which cover an arbitrators’ code of conduct; expropriation and compensation; foreign investment policy; and public debt.
Delegates had a new round of deliberations for multilateral reform of ISDS at UNCITRAL from April 1 to 5. The meeting of Working Group III, which is tasked with this process, was held in New York.
“Structured discussions” on a possible multilateral facilitation framework resumed in Geneva this past month. The meeting, held in early March, marked the first session of the new year, and begins a new phase in the structured discussions process. The WTO members involved previously met seven times during 2018, examining a series of overarching objectives that this framework could address.
CONOCOPHILLIPS PETROZUATA B.V., CONOCOPHILLIPS HAMACA B.V., CONOCOPHILLIPS GULF OF PARIA B.V. AND CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY V. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/07/30
ANGLO AMERICAN PLC V. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, ICSID CASE NO. ARB(AF)/14/1
GREENTECH ENERGY SYSTEMS A/S & ORS. V. THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, SCC ARBITRATION V (2015/095)
Tribunal finds expropriation of investment by Bolivia due to non-payment of compensation but awards only sunk costs to British investor
SOUTH AMERICAN SILVER LIMITED (BERMUDA) V. THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA, PCA CASE NO. 2013-15
MARFIN INVESTMENT GROUP HOLDINGS S.A., ALEXANDROS BAKATSELOS AND OTHERS V. REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/13/27
TOMASZ CZĘŚCIK AND ROBERT ALEKSANDROWICZ V. CYPRUS, SCC CASE NO. V 2014/169