Reply to the European Commission’s public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution
The European Commission launched a public consultation to gather views on options for a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution on December 21, 2016. This commentary outlines IISD's reaction.
The European Commission launched a public consultation on December 21, 2016 to gather stakeholders’ views on options for a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, including the possible establishment of a permanent Multilateral Investment Court (MIC).
While the Commission has not released language for its MIC proposal, it presumably builds on the Investment Court System (ICS) embedded in recent EU agreements with Canada and Vietnam, comprising a First Instance Tribunal and an Appeal Tribunal with full-time judges empowered to decide on cases initiated by foreign investors against their host states.
In this commentary, IISD rejects the Commission’s ICS proposal as it fails to address most of the flaws that have led to public concern regarding ISDS. IISD further rejects the MIC proposal, which would cement the flawed ISDS regime and, worse, extrapolate it to the multilateral level. Despite the procedural improvements brought by both proposals vis-à-vis traditional ISDS, they fall short of advancing satisfactory alternatives to the unidirectional, exclusionist and unbalanced nature of the existing ISDS regime. IISD regrets that the Commission’s consultation was based on narrow questions that fail to reach the core elements of much-needed reform in investment dispute settlement. The consultation was a missed opportunity for the Commission to obtain valuable inputs toward multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution in the best interest of Europeans and the international community.
You might also be interested in
Decoding the Belt and Road Initiative’s Legal Architecture
This article unpacks the Belt and Road Initiative's legal architecture—covering hard law (such as treaties and contracts), soft law (such as memoranda of understanding), and the unique role of China's state-owned enterprises—and sets out recommendations for host country policy-makers on how to navigate this hybrid legal environment.
What Happened in Santa Marta?
What happened at the first international conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels? IISD experts share 7 takeaways and discuss what comes next.
Tax Incentives in National Investment Laws
This report maps the design, legal structure, and governance arrangements of tax incentives across 105 national investment laws to support better coordination among the institutions that shape these policies and help countries attract quality investment.
Understanding Investor–State Dispute Settlement in the Mining Sector
This brief introduces investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) for mining policy-makers and shows how understanding it helps governments design clearer rules, manage permits and contracts, prevent costly disputes, and protect policy spaces while maintaining a predictable investment climate.