Experts took particular concern with the fact that most investment treaties do not oblige arbitrators to take into account international agreements on climate change when adjudicating cases.
Les experts se sont dit particulièrement préoccupés par le fait que la plupart des traités d’investissement ne contraignent pas les arbitres à tenir compte des accords internationaux sur le changement climatique.
As investor-state arbitration continues its growth as one of the most dynamic and controversial features of international investment law, developing countries must learn lessons from the decisions of arbitral tribunals on old-generation treaties.
Un estudio advierte de que “La acción mundial contra el cambio climático podría generar más de 340.000 millones de dólares en reclamaciones legales de los inversores en petróleo y gas“.
We estimate that countries would face up to $340 billion in legal and financial risks for canceling fossil fuel projects that are subject to treaties with ISDS clauses.
In the context of investment treaties and arbitration, states should not put private arbitrators in the driver’s seat on issues of valuation of fossil fuel assets and compensation.
Mexico and many other countries are facing anti-democratic corporate lawsuits like the case that pushed Khan to withdraw from international investment agreements.