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
This report sheds light on Nigeria’s investment protection regime and its consequences for one of Africa’s biggest countries.
What recent case law and treaty reforms may mean for the future of investment arbitration in the energy sector.
Reforms are essential to ensure investment treaties and associated investor-state disputes don’t hinder countries’ efforts to tackle climate change.
Existing international investment agreements providing for investor–state dispute settlement fail to advance climate goals and can effectively hinder states’ climate action.
In recent years, in certain investment arbitration proceedings, States have brought counterclaims alleging that foreign investors had failed to comply with corporate social responsibility principles. In all but two cases, these counterclaims have been unsuccessful.
The model BIT aims to balance two objectives: the attraction of foreign direct investment to African states and the promotion of sustainable development.
ISDS is an unsuitable forum for the just resolution of investment disputes founded on the consequences of armed conflict.
Unsatisfyingly, ISDS permits international investment law to exist in a vacuum that enables those tasked with adjudicating disputes to turn a blind eye to international humanitarian law norms.
As investor-state arbitration continues its growth as one of the most dynamic and controversial features of international investment law, developing countries must learn lessons from the decisions of arbitral tribunals on old-generation treaties.
The 2019 Moroccan Model BIT is a good example of the growing body of ‘new generation’ Model BITs fuelling the ISDS reform conversation.
