Investor–State Disputes in the Fossil Fuel Industry
Phasing out fossil fuels is critical to global efforts to tackle climate change, but actions to curb emissions are hindered by protections granted under international investment law. This report analyzes the extent to which investor–state disputes protect foreign investments in fossil fuel projects—and therefore obstruct climate action.
The fossil fuel industry accounts for almost 20% of the total known investor–state dispute settlement cases across all sectors-making it the most litigious industry in the ISDS system.
There has been a recent but growing wave of investment arbitrations initiated by the fossil fuel industry to counteract critical climate measures, such as the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Most known ISDS cases related to fossil fuels are decided in favour of investors. The average amount awarded—over USD 600 million—is almost five times the amount awarded in non-fossil fuel cases
As the consequences of burning fossil fuels become increasingly evident, policy-makers across the globe are stepping up their efforts to phase them out and curb emissions. However, under current international investment law, foreign investments in fossil fuel projects are granted special protection. Through a process known as investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), fossil fuel investors can bring claims to international tribunals regarding regulatory measures adopted by host countries, which they allege breach their investment privileges.
This report analyzes the trends in investor–state disputes initiated by investors in the fossil fuel industry to understand the extent to which this industry relies on ISDS to protect its investments. It identifies and examines 231 known investment arbitrations related to fossil fuels, which account for 20% of the total known ISDS cases across all sectors. The findings suggest that the fossil fuel industry has been using the ISDS system extensively to protect its investments, thereby presenting a major obstacle for countries seeking to phase out fossil fuels and tackle climate change.
You might also be interested in
United We Leave or Divided We Stay? Why it’s time for the EU to speak with one voice regarding the Energy Charter Treaty
After a written procedure that was finalized on Friday July 7, the European Commission formally recommended a coordinated EU withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty. What does this mean for climate action?
Bruxelles propose une sortie à l’échelle de l’UE du traité sur la Charte de l’énergie, considéré comme contraire au Green Deal
La Commission européenne a formellement proposé un retrait « coordonné et ordonné » du traité sur la Charte de l’énergie. La législation proposée, dévoilée vendredi après-midi après des jours de spéculation, verrait l’Union européenne et ses États membres quitter le traité controversé en même temps, évitant le chaos d’avoir des pays individuels suivant leur propre chemin. L’Allemagne, la France, l’Espagne, les Pays-Bas et la Pologne faisaient partie de ceux qui avaient précédemment annoncé leur intention de se retirer de manière unilatérale, à l’instar de l’Italie, qui a quitté la convention en 2016.
Brussels tables EU-wide exit from the Energy Charter Treaty, considered at odds with the Green Deal
The European Commission has formally proposed a "coordinated and orderly" withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty. The proposed legislation, unveiled on Friday afternoon after days of speculation, would see the European Union and its member states leave the controversial treaty at the same time, avoiding the chaos of having individual countries going their own way.
EU moves to quit energy investment treaty
The European Union on Friday moved to pull the plug on the bloc's membership in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) — an investor protection pact that's seen as hampering decarbonization efforts.