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.
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.
Jamaica’s Perspective on Reform of the Global Investment Regime
By Omar Chedda
The Covid-19 pandemic has dealt a severe blow to the world economy, and in particular, Jamaica’s economy, due to supply chain bottlenecks and reduction of tourism, on which Jamaica is heavily dependent. This is the context in which Jamaica is now reviewing its investment regime to ensure that investments contribute to recovery, building resilience and sustainable development, while improving investor rights and obligations in line with global trends.
Carving Out a Role for Human Rights in International Investment Law
by Barnali Choudhury
The public health burdens that have been imposed on governments by Covid-19 serve as an important reminder of the importance for states to be able to regulate public health as well as other human rights issues. Commentators are already describing the myriad of investment arbitration claims that states may expect to face for their acts in handling the Covid-19 crisis. By carving out a role for human rights in international investment law, states can ensure that protection of human dignity, not property interests, will continue to be their ultimate objective.
Virtual Consultation in support of the UN Working Group’s 2021 Report to the UN General Assembly on Human Rights-Compatible International Investment Agreements
South Centre, 23 June 2021
Foreign direct investment (FDI) should support States’ efforts to “bring the SDGs and goals of the Paris Agreement to life for all people, everywhere.” However, achievement of these objectives is slowed down in the current situation where investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms are included in international investment agreements (IIAs). These mechanisms have increased the exposure of States to claims from foreign investors against regulatory measures taken to protect and guarantee a clean and safe environment, public health, human rights, social inclusion, and poverty reduction.
In the current scenario marked by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, FDI can be a valuable source of financing a better and fairer recovery, including investment needed to achieve the full realisation of all human rights. But to achieve this potential, there is a need to reshape the international investment regime, including through the reform of its substantive rules and standards, as well as of the ISDS mechanisms embedded in existing IIAs.
The South Centre and the United Nations Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises convened a virtual consultation to identify and assess the different challenges developing countries face while negotiating or reforming IIAs in line with their international human rights obligations. The virtual consultation aimed at highlighting and discussing some of the most common concerns and challenges those developing countries face in the promotion of responsible investment practices, including an exploratory discussion about balancing the rights and obligations of investors in IIAs and safeguarding the sovereign right of States to regulate in the public interest for building back better and fairer in face of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also discussed possible reforms of the ISDS mechanism.
UNCITRAL Working Group III: Moving forward towards consensus or loosing balance?
By Daniel Uribe and Danish
This policy brief considers some concerns arising from the ongoing discussions on procedural reform of investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III. It highlights the need to allocate sufficient time to deliberate upon the important issues being raised by developing countries. It further discusses some structural reform options that have been identified by the Working Group and reflects on some concerns arising from a possible ‘single undertaking’ approach being implemented through a future possible multilateral agreement on ISDS.
Investment Policy Options for Facing COVID-19 Related ISDS Claims
By Daniel Uribe and Danish
Developing and least developed countries have undertaken a number of measures to fight against the multidimensional impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such measures and those that may be adopted in the context of the recovery efforts are, however, susceptible to challenges by foreign investors using investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms.
This policy brief first considers the kinds of measures States have adopted to limit the spread of COVID-19, protect their strategic sectors and promote economic recovery, including through foreign investment aftercare and retention. It then addresses how the investor-State dispute settlement system (ISDS) has been used by investors in times of crises, based on the analysis of the awards in several cases brought against both developed and developing countries.
Against this backdrop, the brief elaborates on the different options and initiatives States can take for preventing ISDS claims at the national, bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. It concludes with some policy advice for developing and least developed countries to face possible COVID-19 related ISDS claims in the future.
Could COVID-19 trigger ‘localizing’ of international investment arbitration?
By Danish
In light of the challenges and travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many developing countries have been unable to effectively participate in international investment arbitration proceedings, traditionally held in locations like Washington D.C. and The Hague. To ease the heavy burdens currently being placed on States and ensuring investor confidence, this Policy Brief argues for the ‘localization’ of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings in host States and regions where the investment is actually located. It highlights the various advantages that localizing ISDS can bring, and the different regional initiatives already working towards this purpose. The brief also considers relevant legal and policy aspects, and seeks to provide concrete suggestions for the localization of ISDS as a small step towards the holistic reform of international investment arbitration.
Countries’ Policy Space to Implement Tobacco Packaging Measures in the Light of Their International Investment Obligations: Revisiting the Philip Morris v. Uruguay Case
By Alebe Linhares Mesquita and Vivian Daniele Rocha Gabriel
This Policy Brief aims to provide a concise analysis of the international investment dispute involving Philip Morris subsidiaries and the Republic of Uruguay. It depicts the main legal and political background that preceded the case, analyzes the decision reached by the arbitral tribunal, and assesses the award’s major regulatory and policy implications. It intends to contribute to the discussions on how and to what extent States can adopt tobacco control measures without violating their international obligations to protect the investment and intellectual property of tobacco companies. The main lesson that can be learned from the analysis of the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case is that investors rights are not absolute and can be relativized when there is a clash between private and public interests, such as in the case of public health. As a result, claims such as indirect expropriation and fair and equitable treatment can be dismissed. Finally, one of the main consequences is the progressive change in the design of international investment treaties, containing more provisions related to the right to regulate.
South Centre Statement to the 2nd Session of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes the commitment of the international community to make the right to development (RtD) a reality for everyone, leaving no one behind, and building peaceful and inclusive societies on the basis of the respect of human rights.
The right to development becomes prominent during and in the aftermath of facing the COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of favorable conditions for international, economic, scientific and technological cooperation, including technology transfer and know-how, is part and parcel of the right to development through the promotion of the well-being of all peoples, the improvement of the economic conditions of the developing countries and bridging of the economic gap.
The Covid-19 Pandemic and Liability under Investment Treaties
By Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah
COVID-19 can increase liability for countries under international investment treaties. Professor M. Sornarajah, Emeritus Professor at the National University of Singapore, discusses in this SouthViews the imminent challenges faced under such treaties by developing countries. The text isbased on his presentation at the South Centre webinar on “Responsible Investment for Development and Human Rights: Assessing Different Mechanisms to Face Possible Investor-State Disputes from COVID-19 Related Measures” held on 30th July 2020. The recording of the webinar is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXPswKuywvA
