Simon Lester

Here's the minimum standard of treatment provision in the leaked TPP investment chapter (which is basically the same as the U.S. model BIT): Article II.6: Minimum Standard of Treatment 14 1. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with applicable customary international law

WikiLeaks has posted the Jan 20, 2015 version of the TPP investment chapter. The NY Times reports here.  I'm going to do two short posts, one on national treatment and one on the minimum standard of treatment.  Here's the national treatment provision: Article II.4: National

In the U.S. - Guatemala CAFTA labor case, there's also a really interesting issue about the use of witness statements as evidence.  Here are some excerpts from a panel ruling issued on Feb 26: 9. However, Guatemala’s letter to the panel of that same day raised new

From the CBC (via Lawrence Friedman): A woman from Corner Brook is learning about the high cost of fashion after she was fined US $250 on Monday for trying to cross the border with a sealskin purse. In early March, Nora Fitzgerald and her friend decided to drive across the

Here's one more provision from that draft Indian model BIT: Chapter V – Exceptions Article 16: General Exceptions 16.1 Nothing in this Treaty precludes the Host State from taking actions or measures of general applicability which it considers necessary with respect to the following, including: (i) protecting public

The draft Indian model BIT (PDF is here), which I just heard about (from Mona Pinchis), has some new language on minimum standard of treatment: Chapter II: Obligations of Parties Article 3: Standard of Treatment 3.1 Each Party shall not subject Investments of Investors of the other Party to

This is a great opportunity to work on WTO disputes, in Geneva, with a really good group of people: The Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL) is seeking to fill a vacancy for one of our positions of Counsel.   We are looking for a lawyer with approximately one to three

Some people are surprised that I am so obsessed with concerned about ISDS.  I've tried explaining it in various ways, but I've had trouble getting my point across.  I think the Bilcon decision from last week can help me clarify.  (Investment Arbitration Reporter explains the case

From trade lawyer Bernard O'Connor: So, as Shakespeare might have said, to conclude this little tale: 1) China agreed in 2001 when it joined the WTO that it was not a market economy. 2) There is nothing in Article 15 giving China the status of a market economy