CAUSATION, STANDARDS OF PROOF AND VALUATION UNDER UNCITRAL WORKING GROUP III: Reducing Uncertainty and Decisional Subjectivity
By José Manuel Alvarez Zárate
The assessment of damages has been one of the areas in which States participating in UNCITRAL Working Group III have expressed concerns about inconsistency, unpredictability and the correctness of ISDS awards. The successive versions of the draft provision on damages were intended to address those concerns. The revised Draft Provision 20 in WP.268 have incorporated a but-for test, requires loss or damage to be directly caused by the breach, replaces the former requirement of satisfactory evidence with a reasonable degree of certainty, and, for certain future damages, proposes a clear and convincing evidence standard. These developments, however, do not fully resolve the evidentiary and causal problem. Identifying who bears the burden of proof does not determine how much uncertainty that party must overcome before a factual proposition may be treated as established. Nor does reasonable degree of certainty, without further criteria, explain how the evidence should be assessed or what a tribunal must identify before concluding that the standard has been satisfied. This still leaves substantial room for subjective and divergent approaches to causation and quantum to Tribunals.
This paper argues that Draft Provision 20 should distinguish more clearly between the existence of the alleged loss, factual causation, legal compensability and quantification. Causation should determine which alleged economic losses are attributable to the breach before questions of legal compensability and valuation arise. For each material head of loss, the tribunal should identify the alleged causal mechanism, the relevant counterfactual, the material factual propositions on which it depends and the material alternative explanations for the same economic outcome before the loss proceeds to valuation. The paper proposes that a material factual proposition necessary to establish the existence of loss and factual causation should be treated as proven only where the evidentiary record provides an objective and verifiable basis for that finding. The tribunal should identify the evidence supporting and contradicting the proposition, assess its reliability, contemporaneity, source independence, corroboration, consistency and completeness, address material competing explanations supported by the record, and explain why the evidence establishes the proposition despite the residual possibility of error. Quantification should likewise rest on identified factual inputs and assumptions supported by the record, and the amount awarded should remain within the limits that the evidence can support.
The purpose is to make the exercise of adjudicative judgment transparent, disciplined and objectively reviewable. Findings on loss and causation should be capable of being reconstructed from the evidence, and the loss ultimately valued should correspond to the loss established as caused by the breach and determined to be compensable under the applicable law.
Reclaiming Authority in Investment Arbitration: Joint Interpretations in International Investment Agreements and Investor-State Dispute Settlement
By Adamant Aldo Ruddyard, Diego Flávio Fontoura José, Sidney Tambasi Netya
Supervisor: Prof. Fuad Zarbiyev
Prepared for the South Centre as part of the Geneva Graduate Institute’s LL.M. Legal Clinic Programme, International Economic Law Stream
In order to analyze to what extent joint interpretations of international investment agreements (IIAs) influence the decision-making of arbitration tribunals in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), this report will explore the evolving role of joint interpretations in international investment law and their impact on the balance of power between States and arbitral tribunals. The first section examines the shift towards joint interpretations and State control, highlighting key developments in treaty design and the increasing use of joint interpretation clauses (JICs) and how they potentially reshape investment tribunals’ decision-making. The second section delves into the characteristics and benefits of joint interpretations, discussing their effectiveness in addressing ambiguities in investment treaties and their potential outcomes to investment arbitrations. Finally, the report will conclude by offering recommendations for enhancing the role of joint interpretations in the investment arbitration framework. The recommendations will address the challenges States face in ensuring the effective use of these mechanisms, proposing ways to integrate JICs into the broader reform efforts of international investment law.
Beyond Amicus Curiae: Rethinking the Role of Third-Party Participation in Investment Arbitration and Environmental Governance
By Paulina Kuehme, Lakshmi Swathi Ganti, Brian Kelly Nyaga, Mattia Semenza
Supervisor: Prof. Elena Cima
Prepared for the South Centre as part of the Geneva Graduate Institute’s LL.M. Legal Clinic Programme, International Environmental Law and Governance Stream
This document examines third-party participation in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), with a particular emphasis on environmental considerations. It investigates how to ensure procedural fairness and enable meaningful involvement of affected communities in cases concerning environmental protection. The study assesses the scope and challenges of such participation, including the ability to present evidence and legal arguments related to environmental impacts. It also explores the potential role of third-party involvement in shaping counterclaims against investors for environmental damage, and its possible influence in mitigating compensation by introducing arguments and evidence related to environmental costs. Through this analysis, the project aims to support a more balanced and sustainable ISDS framework – one that protects both investors and the environment – while fostering community empowerment and strengthening accountability for environmental harm.
The South Centre: 30 Years Advancing towards a Fair and Responsible International Investment Regime
By Daniel Uribe
This paper examines the South Centre’s 30-year effort to reform the international investment law (IIL) regime, advocating for a shift from a self-contained system to one integrated with human rights, environmental protection, and sustainable development. It analyses how the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has led to “regulatory chill” and legal fragmentation, disproportionately impacting developing nations. The South Centre promotes aligning investment with national development strategies through technical assistance, treaty renegotiation, and policy frameworks that emphasise investor obligations and State sovereignty. Ultimately, the paper calls for a paradigm shift in global governance to address emerging challenges such as climate change and the digital divide, thereby ensuring a more equitable and responsible investment landscape.
Addressing the Systemic Risks of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) to Climate Action
Informal Note, 5 June 2026
By Daniel Uribe Terán, Lead Programme Officer, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Programme, South Centre
The current international investment agreement (IIA) framework, featuring over 2,200 treaties with Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, acts as a structural barrier to the implementation of key aspects of the Paris Agreement. By protecting fossil fuel investments, those treaties create significant financial risks that may induce “regulatory chill,” deterring states from implementing necessary climate mitigation measures. Recent rulings from the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights have affirmed states’ sovereign rights to regulate for climate action, providing new legal tools to challenge the ISDS status quo. However, these judicial developments do not eliminate litigation risks or guarantee favourable outcomes. Consequently, states must pursue systemic reform, including treaty modernisation, the termination of outdated IIAs, the implementation of comprehensive climate carve-outs, and restrictions on forward-looking damages. Addressing these legal barriers at upcoming forums like the 64th sessions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Subsidiary Bodies (SB 64) is essential to align international investment law with the existential imperative of a low-emission transition.
The Constitutional Shield: How Colombia’s Judiciary Shapes Investment Treaties Through Joint Interpretation
By Daniel Uribe Teran
This policy brief examines an innovative judicial approach by the Colombian Constitutional Court in response to an increase in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims. The Court introduced a doctrine called ‘conditional constitutionality’ (exequibilidad condicionada), which mandates the executive to negotiate binding joint interpretative declarations prior to ratifying an International Investment Agreement (IIA). This process aims to clarify ambiguous language and ensure that IIA provisions align with constitutional principles, particularly concerning the sovereign right to regulate and the protection of human and environmental rights.
The analysis examines the “constitutional shield” doctrine established by this domestic mechanism, emphasising its legal basis in Article 31.3(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, it highlights a significant discrepancy: the uncertain acknowledgement of these subsequent agreements within the international investment arbitration framework. The brief notes that arbitral tribunals, which often function as autonomous legal systems, may not consistently respect such domestic constitutional provisions. This creates ongoing tension between national sovereignty and arbitral independence. The policy brief concludes by addressing the limitations of relying solely on domestic solutions and calls for systemic reforms at the international level, such as within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III.
Advancing Responsible Foreign Investment through a Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
By Daniel Uribe Terán
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) presents a complex dynamic, offering potential economic growth while posing significant risks of human rights abuses and environmental degradation. This policy brief considers that current voluntary frameworks, such as Economic, Social, and Governance (ESG) and voluntary due diligence standards, are insufficient to protect human rights, as they primarily focus on mitigating investor financial risk rather than preventing actual harm. Furthermore, the international investment regime, particularly the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, systemically undermines States’ sovereign right to regulate in the public interest. ISDS cases often penalise governments for enacting environmental, labour, and human rights protections, creating a “regulatory chill” that prioritises corporate profits over social welfare. The proposed Legally Binding Instrument (LBI) on business and human rights is presented as a necessary response to establish mandatory, enforceable obligations for corporations. This includes robust Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) and legal liability mechanisms, thereby rebalancing the system to ensure corporate accountability and align investment with sustainable development goals.
Contract-based Arbitration: Lessons Learned from Bolivia’s Extractives Industries
By Daniel Uribe Teran
Bolivia has undergone a significant shift in its approach to investment dispute resolution, moving away from reliance on Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and international arbitration towards domestic mechanisms and contract-based arbitration. This shift, driven by a desire to assert greater state sovereignty over natural resources, seeks to align dispute resolution with national development priorities while reducing the costs associated with international arbitration. The recent Shell Bolivia Corporation v. YPF Bolivia case highlights the complexities inherent in contract-based arbitration within the extractive sector, emphasizing the need for meticulous contract drafting and a clear definition of arbitrable disputes within the framework of Bolivian law.
This article analyses Bolivia’s transition from reliance on international investment treaties and arbitration to a domestic, contract-centred approach for resolving disputes in its extractive industries. The article examines how the legal framework adopted by Bolivia highlights the role of contract-based arbitration in addressing disputes related to investment, production, technology transfer, environmental and social impacts, labour relations, and contract interpretation. The article draws lessons from other developing countries’ experience, recommending that Bolivia further strengthen its investment framework by adopting clear protection standards, prioritizing fair administrative procedures, and emphasizing domestic remedies. This approach seeks to balance attracting responsible investment with protecting state sovereignty and promoting sustainable development in Bolivia’s extractive industries.
Investor Obligations in International Investment Law
by David Cheng, Jai Abhijit Unde, and James Casey Ryan
Prepared for the South Centre as part of the Geneva Graduate Institute’s LL.M. Legal Clinic Programme
This report first outlines key instruments and different approaches that some States across Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas have taken to reform the international investment regime in relation to investor obligations. Second, it charts the trends arising from investment tribunals following Urbaser across environmental and human rights cases. Third, it describes and evaluates the reform efforts at the multilateral level. Finally, it summarises and evaluates avenues for policy reform by States.
Ensuring A Balanced Approach in UNCITRAL Working Group III
co-organized by Gobierno de Colombia, Diplomatische Akademie Wien, Universidad Externado de Colombia, and the South Centre
Views from the Global South on the Multilateral Investment Court and Procedural and Cross-cutting Issues in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Reform.
24 September 2024
Diplomastiche Akademie Wien,
Festsaal, Favoritenstrasse 15a,
1040 Vienna, Austria
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.
