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
Their submissions conclude that the system is detrimental to public budgets, regulations in the public interest, democracy and the rule of law.
South Africa makes clear that in its view, procedural reform is not enough. A wider agenda that includes substantive issues is needed.
The traditional mechanism of investment arbitration between the investor and the host State has been under attack for some time now from a range of actors and for a variety of reasons.
Campaigners are urging reform of an obscure system that allows coal, oil and gas companies to sue governments if climate policies hit their profits.
Multinational companies will increasingly file massive cases against host countries when climate change policies affect their profits, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.
Caribbean States and investors are not only participating, but being harmed by the ills and abuses of the current system of ISDS.
The 37th session in New York was devoted to addressing and identifying some additional concerns and creating a workplan for carrying out phase three of the mandate—developing possible ISDS reform options.
But legality should not be our main concern here. There are much better approaches to international investment and we should be considering them.
If the investment regime is to be made supportive of development and overcome its legitimacy crisis confronting, something more is required than procedural reforms to ISDS.
The proposed amendments signal an effort to improve the procedural rules governing ICSID arbitration, but fail to appropriately address many concerns expressed and fall short of promoting meaningful reform of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS).
