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
Tanzania’s reforms show that the claim that African states should regard ISDS mechanism as the preferred method for resolving investment disputes is not only very contested, but that there are legitimate grounds for those contestations.
The hegemon aspirants in international investment law have already, and perhaps unwittingly, revealed their three step manual: Disguise, dismiss, divert.
In recent years, mediation has been actively discussed for the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime, particularly as a means of reducing costs and delays.
The Australian Federal Government has announced it is reviewing the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to which Australia is a party.
COVID-19 can increase liability for countries under international investment treaties. Developing countries face imminent challenges under such treaties.
Nigeria is undertaking series of reforms of the country’s bilateral investment treaties to attract responsible, inclusive, balanced and sustainable investments.
With the growing concern over the traditional ISDS system, it is highly unlikely that the AfCFTA will include an ISDS mechanism giving investors access to go to international arbitration under conventional international tribunals.
African states need to take a unified and proactive approach to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), in order to make a system that is fairer to Africa and more consistent.
Amidst the global risk of ISDS claims, it is incumbent to shed light on Bangladesh’s BIT structure and its feasibility to confront ISDS claims in the backdrop of Covid-19 regulatory space.
In the face of the increasing number of claims brought by investors against host states on the basis of BITs and the exorbitant amounts awarded to investors, Morocco has undertaken a review of its model BIT using a flexible and rational approach.
