ISDS Case Map
ISDS reform
Tweaked versions of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism being proposed to avoid the most controversial aspects of regular forms of ISDS
Pakistan, which entered into its first BIT with Germany in 1959 — which also was the first BIT ever entered — has concluded 53 BITs with 48 countries.
The solution to the “regulatory chill” problem lies not in the cosmetic amendments to IIAs but in “supranational” legal regimes providing for full convergence of international investment law and human rights.
This brief argues for the ‘localization’ of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings in host States and regions where the investment is actually located.
The overreach on display in the aggressive use of ISDS lawsuits by multinational corporations is just one part of a broader trend in recent decades in which the ability of states to regulate their economies in their own interests.
A plurilateral “interpretative statements,” whereby governments endorse joint statements clarifying and defining their positions on contentious clauses in their existing investment treaties would be a practical, flexible and low-cost option.
The Working Group’s focus was structural reforms, first selection and appointment of permanent or fixed-term adjudicators, then an appellate mechanism.
An appeal mechanism is not the panacea to all primary concerns associated with ISDS. There is a need for holistic reform.
Sources said that the government will have its own template for a BIT, which will replace the existing treaties with different countries.
The EU and Canada adopted four decisions putting in place the Investment Court System provisions agreed in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
