FIRST DISCUSSIONS ON DAMAGES IN THE INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM AT UNCITRAL WORKING GROUP III
By José Manuel Alvarez Zárate
This paper summarises the history of initial discussions within UNCITRAL Working Group III (WG.III) on the reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regarding the lack of correctness, consistency and predictability of compensation awards. It covers the period up to 2022, beginning with the initial concerns expressed by some countries of the Global South regarding the methodologies used to assess damages and the Draft on Damage Assessment and Compensation prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat, which served as the basis for subsequent discussions among the members of WG.III. It then describes the comments made by some states and observers on this draft and the discussions that ensued, including the discussion of damages as part of the issues of ISDS reform. A second paper on this topic will describe the period from September 2022 to the publication by the Secretariat of the second draft of procedural and cross-cutting issues on July 8, 2024.
The purpose of this paper is to provide Global South States with a track record of the main concerns expressed by States on various aspects of damages during the discussions in UNCITRAL WG.III, which have often been lost at some point during the long process of discussions on ISDS reform.
Ensuring a Balanced Approach for the Global South in UNCITRAL Working Group III
By José Manuel Alvarez Zarate
This paper examines the ongoing efforts of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (WG III) to reform the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. It argues that the current approach prioritises the concerns of developed countries over those of the Global South. The document highlights the disproportionate focus on the Permanent Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) and related issues, while neglecting procedural and cross-cutting concerns crucial for developing nations. The paper proposes concrete actions to rebalance the discussions, including prioritising procedural reforms and ensuring equitable representation in the MIC’s structure and appointment process. It emphasises the need for transparency, depoliticisation, and genuine consideration of the Global South’s concerns to achieve a genuinely legitimate and balanced ISDS reform.
Discussions on Draft Provisions on Damages in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System in UNCITRAL Working Group III
By José Manuel Alvarez Zárate
This paper summarizes the discussions within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (WG III) on the reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regarding the two draft provisions on damages prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat as part of the two drafts on procedural and cross-cutting issues. It covers the period from September 2022 to July 8, 2024. It describes the draft provisions on damages and related provisions on procedural and cross-cutting issues of document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.231, dated 26 July 2023, as well as the comments made on it by some members of WG III and observers. It also describes the changes to the above document contained in the second draft on the procedural and cross-cutting issues, dated July 8, 2024, contained in document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.244.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the comments made by some States on the draft provisions on damages, the substantive changes made by the Secretariat to the first draft, mostly based on the comments made by some States, and the exclusion of important aspects highlighted by some Global South States in their interventions. In the light of this review, countries of the Global South may consider commenting on document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.244 to ensure that their concerns are effectively taken into account.
Foreign Direct Investment Screening for ‘National Security’ or Sustainable Development: a blessing in disguise?
By Daniel Uribe Teran
Over the past decade, the global adoption of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening mechanisms (ISMs) has surged, reflecting developed countries’ policies aiming at restricting FDI on the grounds of broadly defined ‘security’ or ‘national’ interests. Recent geopolitical and economic crises have further fuelled this trend, leading to increasingly stringent ISMs. This paper explores the definition, evolution, and current practices of ISMs, highlighting their resurgence and differing motivations globally. It examines how, if properly used, ISMs could also be used to promote sustainable development and resilience, and advance climate action agendas. The paper also provides policymakers with insights into maximizing the impact of ISMs to achieve sustainable development and economic resilience in an interconnected world.
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.
Unpacking the WTO MC13 Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce
By Vahini Naidu
The 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) adopted a decision that marks a pivotal shift in the operational framework of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce (WPEC) of the organisation. This Policy Brief examines how this Decision can enhance the trajectory of the e-commerce discourse within the WTO, elaborates on its implications and makes recommendations aimed at facilitating developing countries’ engagement in the WPEC.
Leveraging ESG for promoting Responsible Investment and Human Rights
By Danish and Daniel Uribe
The growing integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into investment frameworks and corporate reporting reflects a heightened recognition of the interplay between business operations and human rights. This Policy Brief examines the evolution of ESG investing, particularly its role in promoting responsible investment and embedding human rights considerations throughout business practices and supply chains. While ESG frameworks hold promise for enhancing corporate accountability and sustainability, challenges persist in effectively linking ESG criteria with human rights standards. It also shows that disparities in ESG reporting criteria and methodologies, compounded by a lack of shared understanding, pose obstacles to meaningful engagement with human rights responsibilities. The Policy Brief also delineates between ESG investing and reporting, highlighting distinct objectives and practices. While ESG investing aims to mitigate financial risks associated with environmental, social, and governance factors, ESG reporting focuses on evaluating firms’ exposure to ESG risks. The Policy Brief underscores the limitations of ESG frameworks in identifying and preventing human rights impacts comprehensively, emphasising the need for complementary measures such as mandatory human rights due diligence. Finally, the paper considers the need for greater coherence and consistency in ESG frameworks to foster responsible investment, promote human rights, and advance sustainable development goals.
This Policy Brief discusses issues concerning trade, intellectual property, and technology transfer that are most relevant for consideration at the 13th World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference (MC13) in February 2024 and inclusion in its outcomes.
The following recommendations are proposed:
TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints: MC13 Decision on the scope and modalities of non-violation and situation complaints under the Agreement on Trade related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). A second option is to extend the moratorium.
TRIPS, diagnostics and therapeutics for COVID-19: MC13 Decision that extends the MC12 TRIPS waiver Decision (only applicable to vaccines) to diagnostics and therapeutics
Relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity: to be addressed in the MC13 Outcome Document
Follow up to the MC12 Declaration on the WTO Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Preparedness for Future Pandemics: to be addressed in the MC13 Outcome Document
Relationship of trade and technology transfer: include in the MC13 Outcome Document to reinvigorate and give direction to the Working Group on Trade and Technology Transfer (WGTTT) and increase attention in all relevant bodies on how the WTO can promote technology transfer
How the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism discriminates against foreign producers
By Peter Lunenborg and Vahini Naidu
In April 2023, the European Parliament adopted the final text of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and revisions to the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (ETS). One of the stated objectives of CBAM is to create a level playing field for selected sectors in the EU market and to protect against the risk of ‘carbon leakage’. Based on an analysis and comparison between the legal texts of CBAM and ETS, this paper finds that CBAM discriminates against foreign producers in favour of EU domestic producers in many areas including with regard to the scope and type of emissions covered, free allocation of allowances, exemptions under EU ETS not mirrored in CBAM, buying and selling of ETS allowances in comparison with CBAM certificates, verification, penalties, authorization, use of credits from the Carbon Development Mechanism (CDM) and guarantees.
The paper also provides a brief overview of how the CBAM and ETS align with WTO rules, highlighting the potential discrepancies in the implementation as they apply to foreign and EU producers respectively. The paper provides several suggestions on how to make EU’s CBAM more WTO-compatible and a recommendation for further legal research.
