International Economic Law and Policy Blog

Sign in Subscribe

Topic

Investor-State Arbitration

92 posts

Australia, the TPP and Investor-State

As noted in the last post, Australia has announced that it no longer wants any part of investor-state dispute settlement. This is not a total surprise, of course, given its past opposition to investor-state in the U.S.-Australia FTA. Nonetheless, such a strong and formal renouncement of investor-state is

Australia and Investor-State

Via Luke Peterson, I see that Australia, in a recent Trade Policy Statement, has come out firmly against investor-state dispute settlement in trade agreements: Some countries have sought to insert investor-state dispute resolution clauses into trade agreements. Typically these clauses empower businesses from one country to take international legal action

Can Authorized Trade Retaliation Violate Investment Law Provisions?

A reader emailed expressing concern about the Cargill NAFTA Chapter 11 Award, in particular this part: 299. Reviewing closely the record of this case, the Tribunal finds ample support for the conclusion that the import permit was one of a series of measures expressly intended to injure United States HFCS

National Treatment in the NAFTA Chapter 11 Cargill Award

The Cargill v. Mexico NAFTA Chapter 11 award is available here. It was sent to the parties in September 2009, but it is just now being released publicly. In this post, I'm just going to make a quick point about the National Treatment analysis. When I first started

Grand River Enterprises Update

I talked about the non-discrimination aspects of the Grand River Enterprises NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute here, here and here. Based on the arguments made by the parties, I was hopeful that the decision would have something interesting to say about these issues. Alas, it was not to be. The decision

International Courts Asking Governments To Help With Interpretation

Speaking of New Zealand and investor-state dispute settlement, in the last post, NZ Prime Minister John Key mentioned the China - NZ FTA, so I looked it up. While skimming through the investor-state provisions, I came accross something I had not seen before: Article 155 Interpretation of Agreement 1. The

Update on New Zealand and Investor-State

Is New Zealand re-thinking its opposition to investor-state? This is from Radio New Zealand: The New Zealand Government could be opening itself to being sued by American multinationals in trade talks - contradicting assurances from Prime Minister John Key. A top United States trade official says New Zealand is ready

National Treatment in the Renco Investor-State Complaint

And here's the final non-discrimination post of the day. U.S. company Renco Group, on its own behalf and on behalf of its affiliate Doe Run Peru (DRP), has brought an investor-state claim against Peru under the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. The Notice of Intent to

The U.S. Record in NAFTA Chapter 11 Cases: Still Undefeated

Over the week-end, the State Department announced the following: On January 12, 2011, a three-member NAFTA arbitration tribunal rejected a claim against the United States filed by Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., a Canadian corporation, and Jerry Montour, Kenneth Hill and Arthur Montour Jr., members of Canadian First Nations,

Public Opinion on Investor-State

From a New Zealand publication: Concerns that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will result in the New Zealand Government being successfully sued by international corporations are unfounded and incorrect, says the NZ US Council. "It is absurd to suggest that the New Zealand Government would be so naive to