investor-state disputes | ISDS

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) refers to a way of handling conflicts under international investment agreements whereby companies from one party are allowed to sue the government of another party. This means they can file a complaint and seek compensation for damages. Many BITs and investment chapters of FTAs allow for this if the investor’s expectation of a profit has been negatively affected by some action that the host government took, such as changing a policy. The dispute is normally handled not in a public court but through a private abritration panel. The usual venues where these proceedings take place are the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (World Bank), the International Chamber of Commerce, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law or the International Court of Justice.

ISDS is a hot topic right now because it is being challenged very strongly by concerned citizens in the context of the EU-US TTIP negotiations, the TransPacific Partnership talks and the CETA deal between Canada and the EU.

El Diario | 20-Aug-2015
Grandes bufetes de abogados presionan para la inclusión del ISDS en el TTIP por los suculentos beneficios que reportan los pleitos arbitrados.
CBC | 20-Aug-2015
Canada is appealing a potentially expensive decision from a NAFTA tribunal, arguing the tribunal "exceeded its jurisdiction" when it upheld a claim from a New Jersey concrete company, Bilcon, that it was entitled to compensatory damages.
The Online Citizen | 20-Aug-2015
What TPP means for Singapore, politics and you.
TUC | 20-Aug-2015
TUC Congress believes that the primary purpose of TTIP is to extend corporate investor rights’ and thus adopted a position of ‘outright opposition’ to TTIP.
The Economic Times | 19-Aug-2015
Indian government had decided to come out with a new framework after several multinational firms invoked bilateral investment protection agreements.
Campact.de | 19-Aug-2015
L’ISDS permet aux entreprises de traîner les gouvernements devant des tribunaux secrets privés. La facture incombera au contribuable européen.
The News Review | 19-Aug-2015
The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), ratified in 2014, is a license to be unfair to Canadians.
JD Supra | 18-Aug-2015
Argentina filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia a petition to vacate an UNCITRAL arbitration award, which could have broader implications for determining partiality of arbitrators.
The Vancouver Sun | 15-Aug-2015
In his new book Gus Van Harten argues that FIPA shows that Canada can be too eager to compromise its economy, long-term, in the hope of a quick buck now.
Investment Arbitration Reporter | 15-Aug-2015
Following Canada’s loss this March in a NAFTA dispute, Bilcon v. Canada, that decision has prompted a new round of submissions in a separate dispute, Mesa Power Group LLC v. Canada.