A Legally Sound Oil and Gas Phase-Out
How to design policies to mitigate investor–state arbitration risks
At the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 28), governments agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly, and equitable manner. Some governments are implementing this decision with plans to phase out oil and gas production. One of the barriers to phase-out policies is the threat of investor–state arbitration. This report provides policy-makers with tools to mitigate the legal risks of investor–state arbitration when designing oil and gas phase-out policies.
Recommendations
-
Based on our analysis of the decisions of arbitral tribunals, this report proposes five principles for policy-makers to follow: 1) no new licences, 2) manage expectations, 3) build broad authority, 4) use existing powers, and 5) be consistent.
In the global stocktake at COP 28, governments agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly, and equitable manner. Several governments are taking action with plans to phase out oil and gas production. A managed phase-out is vital to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and smooth the transition for oil- and gas-producing economies.
One barrier is the threat of investors suing governments through investor–state arbitration. Some governments have stated that this threat has led them to adopt less ambitious fossil fuel phase-out policies.
As more governments commit to phasing out oil and gas exploration and production, mitigation of the risks of investor–state arbitration becomes a key priority. These risks differ over time and depend on the targeted stage of the production cycle. The sooner governments act, the higher the chances of achieving 1.5°C and, crucially, the lower their legal risks. Conversely, governments that postpone phase-out measures make it harder to align fossil fuel production with the Paris goals and expose themselves to additional legal risks.
This report supports governments committed to the phase-out, particularly in developed countries. It provides policy-makers with tools to mitigate the legal risks of investor–state arbitration when designing and implementing policies to phase out oil and gas production.
You might also be interested in
The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Emphasizes Why Canada Should Move Away From Oil and Gas—Not Expand It
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz cut off roughly 25% of the world’s seaborne oil and 20% of LNG trade. In response, many countries are diversifying supply chains and increasingly ramping up domestic renewable capacity to improve energy security. Meanwhile, the Government of Canada has taken steps to expand oil and gas production.
Managing Energy Price Crises
This report outlines a strategic decision framework policy-makers can use when responding to fossil fuel price shocks.
Removing a Fossil Fuel Subsidy Is a Means, Not an End—The transition is the point
COFFIS is an international coalition working to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Kim Solberg, part of the team that founded COFFIS, sits down to explain what made it possible—and why, in her view, a subsidy can only be removed as part of the wider transition it's meant to serve.
July 2026 | Carbon Minefields Oil and Gas Exploration Monitor
Last month, global awarded oil and gas exploration acreage stood at around 354,000 square kilometres, a territory that’s roughly the size of Germany.