IP Licence, Trademarks and ISDS: Bridgestone v. Panama
Can an intellectual property right or a license authorizing its use be deemed an ‘investment’ under bilateral investment treaties? This policy brief discusses the arguments submitted by the parties in the Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Republic of Panama case on questions regarding a trademark license agreement. Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. (BSLS) and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. (BSAM) together initiated arbitration proceedings on the grounds that Panama’s Supreme Court decision was unjust and arbitrary, violated Panama’s obligations under the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), expropriated their investments, and violated the requirement of fair and equitable treatment (FET) to BSLS’s and BSAM’s investments.
Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Anachronism Whose Time Has Gone
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – a mechanism that allows foreign investors to bring claims against host governments to an international arbitral tribunal – is a relic that should be abolished. Its alleged benefits have not materialized and its costs – monetary and other – can represent a formidable obstacle to good economic governance. We recommend policymakers to terminate ISDS provisions in existing agreements and eschew them in future trade and investment treaties.
The Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) in the context of the discussions on the reform of the ISDS system
The Brazilian Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) model establishes an alternative approach to dispute resolution. This does not mean, however, that the CFIA is silent with regards to possible disputes arising from breaches to the agreement and/or claims by investors. Based on the premise that the investment regime between two or more countries is a positive-sum game, in which all parties involved win, the CFIA presents an approach based on the prevention of disputes.
How international investment agreements have made debt restructuring even more difficult and costly
International investment and trade agreements are legally binding international treaties which give investors an additional layer of legal protection on top of the host country law and contract law. However, little efforts have been made in ironing out the interface between these different laws and treaties. Inconsistencies and even contradictions have emerged in dispute settlement decisions, sometimes at the expense of public good, sovereignty and financial and economic stability. An asymmetry seems to exist in the allocation of risks and benefits between investors and recipients of investments. (more…)
The Legal Nature of the Draft Pan-African Investment Code and its Relationship with International Investment Agreements
The present Policy Brief examines the drafting and negotiating process of the draft Pan-African Investment Code (PAIC). It analyses different aspects of this process, particularly the legal nature of the PAIC and its relationship with other international investment agreements.
Reflections on the Discussion of Investment Facilitation
‘Investment facilitation’ is a concept repeated in discussions pertaining to investment policies and treaties, including those addressing the reform of investment treaties. The discussion on investment facilitation is taking place in various fora and contexts. (more…)
The Experience of Sri Lanka with International Investment Treaties
This policy brief gives an overview of Sri Lanka’s experience with investment treaties, including highlights from a study undertaken by the authors in regard to the interface between BITs and FDI inflows. The brief also reviews international trends in relation to re-negotiating BITs and discusses the elements driving these trends, offering insights into the factors shaping this discussion in developing countries. (more…)
Peruvian State’s Strategy for Addressing Investor State Disputes
This policy brief explains the approach adopted by Peru to establishment of the “System for the Coordination and Response of the State in International Investment Disputes” (SICRECI) and the role it played in responding to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases faced by Peru. It gives an overview of the sixteen ISDS cases brought against Peru to date. While this institutional development adds value in terms of managing cases as they arise, the paper points out that this system faces major hurdles due to multiple challenges arising from ISDS. As shown in the paper, after the establishment of SICRECI, Peru continued to face a rising number of ISDS cases. (more…)
Ecuador’s Experience with International Investment Arbitration
The brief reviews Ecuador’s experience with investment treaties and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The paper explains the historical and geopolitical context of the decisions Ecuador has taken in regard to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and ISDS. The author notes that a number of treaties did not fulfill the constitutional and legal ratification processes. (more…)
International Investment Agreements and Africa’s Structural Transformation: A Perspective from South Africa
The brief describes the widening debate on the implications of international investment agreements (IIAs) for sustainable development. This debate is particularly relevant in Africa as the continent’s new economic development programme to effect structural transformation and achieve sustainable development may well be constrained by the terms and conditions imposed by IIAs. (more…)
India’s Experience with BITs: Highlights from Recent ISDS Cases
This brief argues that there is a case for a review of India’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The author recommends that the review should cover, inter alia, issues of more favourable treatment of foreigners compared to locals, and limitations on policy space of the government to address public interest concerns, in particular, those in the areas of public health and environment. (more…)
Crisis, Emergency Measures and the Failure of the ISDS System: The Case of Argentina
This brief gives an account of Argentina’s experience with investor-state dispute settlement in 2001-2014. Between 2002 and 2007, Argentina was the subject of a quarter of all the cases initiated within the framework of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention. These cases were triggered by changes within the regulatory framework for international investments –particularly in sectors related to the provision of public services– as a result of the implementation of a package of measures aimed at tackling one of the worst economic crises in Argentina’s history. (more…)