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
Supply chain ESG laws face uphill battle
A last-minute compromise has saved a landmark EU reform to hold the bloc’s biggest companies accountable for environmental, social and governance (ESG) abuses in their supply chains. But the need to dilute the rules to win political buy-in, plus a US decision to scrap supply chain obligations from the country’s fresh climate-disclosure rules, reveals the difficulty of holding firms legally responsible for their business partners’ actions.
Investor–State Dispute Settlement and Fossil Fuels: What role for a carveout?
Next week, at the 9th annual OECD Investment Treaty Conference, delegates will discuss a possible carveout of climate change measures from investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). We assess the implications of this for states' climate policies and broader efforts to reform international investment governance.
The Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement: A reader's guide
A subset of World Trade Organization members has finalized the legal text of an Agreement on Investment Facilitation. This Reader's Guide provides an overview of what's in the agreement.
Tough Road Ahead to Integrate Investment Facilitation Agreement Into World Trade Organization System
Rashmi Jose delves into the origins, content, and challenges of integrating the plurilateral Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement into the WTO framework.