Tweaked versions of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism being proposed to avoid the most controversial aspects of regular forms of ISDS
30-Oct-2018
SOMO
The UNCITRAL process runs a real risk of producing middle-ground solutions that will fail to address the fundamental flaws of the ISDS system and will only further institutionalise and re-legitimise the system.
30-Oct-2018
More than 300 civil society groups and trade unions urged governments participating in United Nations meetings in Vienna to completely overhaul the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system.
28-Sep-2018
Client Earth
ClientEarth has challenged a judgment regarding the European Commission’s decision to keep secret information about controversial investment tribunals in EU international trade deals.
24-Sep-2018
Friends of the Earth Europe
Our analysis of the leaked draft code of conduct of CETA tribunals reveals that the same people known as ISDS arbitrators and counsellors will now take over CETA tribunals.
11-Sep-2018
APWLD
“We call on our governments to either address the real reasons why ISDS is fundamentally flawed or to abandon its ‘reform’ agenda that is designed to reinforce and re-legitimise a self-serving investment dispute system.”
28-Aug-2018
Vietnam Briefing
Vietnam and the EU have concluded their discussions on an Investment Protection Agreement, which they decided to keep it separate from their free trade agreement.
22-Jun-2018
TACD
TACD’s resolution recommends that rather than pursuing procedural changes through a MIC at the global level, the EU and US should refrain from including investor-state dispute settlement in any form from any agreement.
5-Jun-2018
EJIL: Talk!
What are states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)? To help answer that question, we have put together four posts that compile the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions.
28-May-2018
Truthout
The takeaway from the UNCITRAL's process for its so-called "reform" discussions is that lawyers making millions in ISDS cases are welcomed, while the voices of the millions of people whose lives are harmed by ISDS cases brought by multinational corporations are barely an afterthought.