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
The European Commission’s focus on ISDS has been so intense that far-reaching reform has been portrayed by many as inevitable. The Commission’s proposal is for the development of a multilateral investment court system (MIC).
The working group continued its deliberations on identification of concerns in the field of ISDS, as contemplated in the first part of the mandate.
This is a crucial moment in international investment policymaking. Two factors have converged, calling for a new direction.
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law has an opportunity this week to keep pace with the other developments around the world challenging ISDS by using bold and creative thinking.
A key feature of the “modernisation” process is the inclusion of a controversial investment protection chapter with the same characteristics as the one recently included in the Canada-EU trade agreement.
The EU should not negotiate on its multilateral investment court project until the Court of Justice of the European Union has established the compatibility of the investment court agreed in CETA.
As released by the European Council
The Council adopted the negotiating directives authorising the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the EU, a convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes.
Now that the CJEU decided that investment treaty arbitration based on intra-EU BITs is not compatible with EU law, the focus of attention must shift towards the domestic courts of the Member States as the guardians of protecting the rights of European investors.
A multilateral state–state dispute settlement mechanism, coupled with other mechanisms to guarantee participation and access to justice to all stakeholders affected by foreign investment, could help rebalance public and private interests in the investment regime.
