Suchergebnisse

Governments are pursuing substantive and procedural reform of the international investment regime in recognition that there are fundamental, systemic, and interrelated concerns about current approaches to investment governance, and that current approaches have failed to meet their purported objectives. A vast majority of the 1,023 publicly-known treaty-based claims have been brought under "old-generation" treaties. In 2018, for example, 60% of such claims were brought under treaties originally concluded in the 1990s or earlier, and all but one was filed under a pre-2011 treaty. These old-generation treaties include vague and far-reaching obligations for states, generally do not include any reference to investor responsibilities (even in non-binding terms) or obligations, and rarely include provisions that seek to meaningfully reaffirm and protect the ability of states to regulate without having to pay compensation for adoption or enforcement of legitimate regulatory measures. Effective environmental, human rights, gender, health, labor, and other public interest provisions are generally absent from these agreements. Without provisions that effectively protect regulatory space and flexibility, and meaningfully advance sustainable development objectives of states parties, respondent host states have been left exposed to costly investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings and claims challenging public interest measures. Investor claimants have also relied on investment treaties and ISDS to make threats of claims in order to distort government measures or conduct in foreign investors' favor. In the context of COVID-19, for example, some law firms seized on the pandemic to advise multinationals on strategies for relying on investment treaties and ISDS to bring claims against governments on the basis of COVID-related measures.

Governments are pursuing substantive and procedural reform of the international investment regime in recognition that there are fundamental, systemic, and interrelated concerns about current approaches to investment governance, and that current approaches have failed to meet their purported objectives. A vast majority of the 1,023 publicly-known treaty-based claims have been brought under "old-generation" treaties. In 2018, for example, 60% of such claims were brought under treaties originally concluded in the 1990s or earlier, and all but one was filed under a pre-2011 treaty. These old-generation treaties include vague and far-reaching obligations for states, generally do not include any reference to investor responsibilities (even in non-binding terms) or obligations, and rarely include provisions that seek to meaningfully reaffirm and protect the ability of states to regulate without having to pay compensation for adoption or enforcement of legitimate regulatory measures. Effective environmental, human rights, gender, health, labor, and other public interest provisions are generally absent from these agreements. Without provisions that effectively protect regulatory space and flexibility, and meaningfully advance sustainable development objectives of states parties, respondent host states have been left exposed to costly investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings and claims challenging public interest measures. Investor claimants have also relied on investment treaties and ISDS to make threats of claims in order to distort government measures or conduct in foreign investors' favor. In the context of COVID-19, for example, some law firms seized on the pandemic to advise multinationals on strategies for relying on investment treaties and ISDS to bring claims against governments on the basis of COVID-related measures.

Large-scale investments in agriculture and forestry have far-reaching implications for the lives of affected individuals and communities. They are also an integral part of efforts by national governments to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and improve the governance of land resources. Despite their significance, these "land deals" and the contracts that govern them are often cloaked in secrecy, removed from relevant spheres of public scrutiny and debate.

In December 2015, the Indian government approved the final text of its revised model bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Shortly thereafter, in February 2016, India published a joint interpretative statement to clarify its understanding of certain treaty provisions found in existing Indian treaties. These recent developments in Indian investment treaty policy are products of a multi-year review process ,prompted at least in part by the 2011 finding against India in the White Industries claim - the first such known finding against the state – and by several notices of dispute received following the determination in that case.

Increased investment in large-scale agricultural, forestry, and fishing projects has raised concerns about pressures on lands and natural resources, and the negative impacts these investments can have when poorly regulated and irresponsibly operated. New disputes between investors and states concerning these investments have sparked commentary regarding the potentially chilling effects they may have on effective regulation of inward investment. At the same time, public and private investments in agriculture are identified as global priorities in the sustainable Development goals. Policy-makers are therefore seeking to facilitate investments in agriculture to advance food security, nutrition, equality, climate and other sustainable development objectives.

The Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy is an annual publication which provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in the international investment law and policy field, focusing on recent trends and issues in foreign direct investment (FDI), investment treaty practice, and investor-state arbitration. The Yearbook monitors current developments in international investment law and policy, focusing (in Part One) on trends in foreign direct investment (FDI), international investment agreements, and investment disputes. Part Two, then, looks at central issues in the contemporary discussions on international investment law and policy. With contributions by leading experts in the field, this title provides timely, authoritative information on FDI that can be used by a wide audience, including practitioners, academics, researchers, and policy makers. Edited by an Editorial Committee and overseen by an Advisory Board of esteemed global experts in the field of international investment law, the Yearbook is an essential tool for practitioners and academics looking for a resource of timely and authoritative information in this field. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_books/1008/thumbnail.jpg

The Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy is an annual publication which provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in the international investment law and policy field, focusing on recent trends and issues in foreign direct investment (FDI), investment treaty practice, and investor-state arbitration. The Yearbook monitors current developments in international investment law and policy, focusing (in Part One) on trends in foreign direct investment (FDI), international investment agreements, and investment disputes. Part Two, then, looks at central issues in the contemporary discussions on international investment law and policy. With contributions by leading experts in the field, this title provides timely, authoritative information on FDI that can be used by a wide audience, including practitioners, academics, researchers, and policy makers. Edited by an Editorial Committee and overseen by an Advisory Board of esteemed global experts in the field of international investment law, the Yearbook is an essential tool for practitioners and academics looking for a resource of timely and authoritative information in this field. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_books/1009/thumbnail.jpg

In its current form, the international investment treaty regime may stymie the business and human rights agenda in various ways. The regime may incentivize governments to favour the protection of investors over the protection of human rights. Investment treaty standards enforced through investor-state arbitration risk adversely affecting access to justice for project-affected rights holders. More broadly, the regime contributes to a system of global economic governance that elevates and rewards investors' actions and expectations, irrespective of whether they have adhered to their responsibilities to respect human rights. Without comprehensive reform, investment treaties and investor-state arbitration will continue to interfere with realization of human rights and broader public interest objectives. This Chapter provides an overview of the interaction between human rights law and the investment treaty regime. It highlights the challenges that arise from tension between international human rights and investment norms, including the impact of the investment regime on the ability of host states to regulate and on access to justice for investment-affected rights holders. The chapter also explores whether and how human rights issues have been addressed by the investment regime to date, highlighting recent developments in treaty drafting practice and responses to human rights argumentation by investment tribunals. It notes the shortcomings of current approaches, and concludes by briefly setting out options for reform.