Painting the Grass Green: A Climate Change Carve-Out in Investment Agreements
By Daniel Uribe
During the Twenty-Eighth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-28) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), States recognised the critical need to accelerate efforts to mitigate climate change and called on Parties to take action to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. However, implementing such a transition finds obstacles in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which can undermine regulatory actions necessary for climate policies, leading to a ‘regulatory chill’. As a response to these challenges, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Future of Investment Treaties program has proposed a model carve-out provision to exclude fossil fuel sectors from ISDS protection with procedural safeguards, but its effectiveness may be limited. A holistic reform of investment agreements and additional measures, such as withdrawal from international investment agreements, are necessary to safeguard regulatory space and promote sustainable investment and a just transition.
The India-EFTA Deal: A New Model for Developing Countries?
By Danish
Governments are shifting from investor-state dispute mechanisms to treaties that encourage and ease investment. The India-European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement could be setting a new standard for developing countries to promote and benefit from foreign investment.
On the Forty-eighth Session of UNCITRAL Working Group III
By Jose Manuel Alvarez Zarate
The forty-eighth session of UNCITRAL Working Group III (WGIII) on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) reform was held in New York from April 1-5, 2024. The WGIII made significant progress in various reform areas. The European Union’s proposal for a permanent Multilateral Investment Court is advancing, albeit with mixed support. A Code of Conduct, developed with ICSID and adopted in 2023, remains contentious. Likewise, discussions focused on the draft statute for an Advisory Centre on International Investment Dispute Settlement, revised guidelines for dispute prevention, and a draft statute for a Permanent Mechanism for ISDS. Despite progress, core criticisms of the ISDS system—transparency, balance of rights, and rule clarity—remain inadequately addressed. This document considers some of the progress made and the need to provide more time for discussions on procedural and cross-cutting issues, which are crucial for developing countries to achieve balanced and inclusive outcomes.
Side Event to the 46th Session of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (WG-III) on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Reform
“Cross-cutting issues at the centre of developing countries’ concerns during the 46th UNCITRAL WG-III Session: Developing Countries’ Efforts Towards ISDS Reform”
Co-organized by the South Centre, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, the Columbia Centre on Sustainable Investment and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Side Event to the 46th Session of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (WG-III) on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Reform
“Cross-cutting issues at the centre of developing countries’ concerns during the 46th UNCITRAL WG-III Session: Damages at the Core of Discussion”
Co-organized by the South Centre (SC), Columbia Centre on Sustainable Investment, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Preserving Regulatory Space for Sustainable Development in Africa
By Roslyn Ng’eno
Investment has an important role for achieving sustainable development in developing countries. Although international investment agreements (IIAs) can serve as instruments to promote such objective, protection oriented IIAs have undermined the ability of States to regulate in the benefit of the community. Likewise large financial reparations imposed by arbitral tribunals have increased the threat of regulatory chill in the face of major global challenges. Strengthening the right to regulate of States and addressing regulatory chill are key matters to consider in the reform of IIAs and the international investment regime.
El mecanismo multilateral permanente propuesto y su posible relación con el universo existente de solución de controversias entre inversionistas y estados
por Danish y Daniel Uribe
La opción de reforma del Mecanismo Multilateral Permanente (SMM) que se está debatiendo actualmente en el Grupo de Trabajo III (GTIII) de la Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional (CNUDMI) ha planteado una serie de importantes preocupaciones sistémicas para las reformas procesales de la solución de controversias entre inversionistas y Estados. El presente documento trata en primer lugar de situar los debates sobre la SaaaMM en su contexto histórico y contemporáneo. A continuación, examina el Documento de Trabajo 213 de la CNUDMI y las disposiciones legales que contiene, que constituyen la base de los debates actuales sobre esta opción de reforma en el GTIII. Además, explora la posible relación de esta propuesta de SMM con diferentes aspectos del régimen jurídico internacional vigente en materia de inversiones. El documento concluye proporcionando algunos elementos que requieren una mayor consideración en este proceso, especialmente para proteger los intereses de los países en desarrollo.
Le mécanisme multilatéral permanent proposé et sa relation potentielle avec l’univers existant du règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États
par Danish et Daniel Uribe
L’option de réforme du Mécanisme permanent de règlement des différends internationaux en matière d’investissements actuellement en discussion au sein du Groupe de travail III de la CNUDCI a soulevé un certain nombre de préoccupations importantes concernant la réforme du système de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États. Le présent document s’attache, dans un premier temps, à situer les discussions sur le mécanisme de règlement des différends dans leurs contextes historique et actuel. Il examine ensuite le document de travail 213 de la CNUDCI et les dispositions juridiques qu’il contient, qui constituent la base des discussions en cours sur cette option de réforme au sein du Groupe de travail. Enfin, il explore les liens potentiels entre le projet de mécanisme de règlement des différends et les différentes facettes du régime des accords internationaux d’investissement. Il se conclut sur les différents points qui nécessitent un examen plus approfondi en vue notamment de préserver les intérêts des pays en développement.
Webinar: Exploring Linkages between Climate Change, International Investment and the Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights
27 September 2022
Virtual event
Time: 15:30 – 17:00 CEST
Facilitated by the South Centre, this webinar is an opportunity for participants representing developing country governments, civil society and academia to exchange views and discuss the linkages between Climate Change, International Investment reforms and the Legally Binding Instrument, and how to harness their common elements to recover better, build resilience against future crises and achieve the UN 2030 Agenda & the SDGs.
The Proposed Standing Multilateral Mechanism and Its Potential Relationship with the Existing Universe of Investor – State Dispute Settlement
by Danish and Daniel Uribe
The reform option on the Standing Multilateral Mechanism (SMM) currently under discussion at UNCITRAL’s Working Group III (WGIII) has raised a number of important, systemic concerns for the procedural reforms of investor-State dispute settlement. This paper first seeks to situate the discussions on the SMM within its historical and contemporary contexts. Then it considers UNCITRAL Working Paper 213 and the legal provisions it contains, which form the basis of ongoing discussions of this reform option at WGIII. Further, it explores the potential relationship of this proposed SMM with different facets of the existing international investment law regime. The paper concludes by providing some elements which require further consideration in this process, particularly for safeguarding the interests of developing countries.
The Impact of a TRIPS COVID Waiver on Trade and Investment Agreements
Program on Intellectual Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law event
February 4, 2022, 10am EST/3pm GMT
Co-Sponsored by the American Branch of the International Law Association and the South Centre
The event will feature a presentation of a South Centre Research Paper by Federica Paddeu and Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, followed by a round table discussion with international law experts. The Seminar is scheduled for 90 minutes in a public and recorded session, followed by a 30 minute off-camera virtual reception held under Chatham House Rule.
A TRIPS-COVID Waiver and Overlapping Commitments to Protect Intellectual Property Rights Under International IP and Investment Agreements
by Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan and Federica Paddeu
This paper considers legal implications that are likely to emerge from the implementation of a TRIPS Waiver decision. Assuming that a Waiver is adopted in the form presented in the May 2021 proposal by South Africa and India et al, we review the interaction between the Waiver and other commitments to protect IP rights under international IP and investment treaties. Our principal research question is to analyze whether domestic measures implementing the Waiver are compatible with the implementing State’s other obligations to protect IP rights established under multilateral IP treaties, IP and Investment Chapters of FTAs as well as BITs. In light of typical examples for such overlapping commitments, we first focus on (1) defences directly affecting compatibility with these treaty commitments (here referred to as ‘internal’ defences). In a second part, we review (2) potential defences under general international law that may serve to justify (in other words, to preclude the wrongfulness of) such measures. We conclude that often internal and/or general defences will operate to support the implementation of the Waiver despite overlapping commitments in international IP and investment law. This conclusion is reinforced by a purpose-oriented understanding of the TRIPS Waiver as authorizing measures necessary to achieve the goal of “unimpeded, timely and secure access” for all to covered medical technologies “for the prevention, treatment or containment of COVID-19”.
