Investor-State Arbitration

Some in Australia are still skeptical of investor-state dispute settlement.  This is from Chapter 14 of today's Productivity Commission report on bilateral and regional trade agreements: It is the Commission’s assessment that although some of the risks and problems associated with ISDS can be ameliorated through the

Including investor-state in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU would, in my view, be a big deal in a number of ways (including the number of investments covered): A controversial NAFTA provision that allows corporations to seek compensation from governments is likely to be included

Investor-state dispute settlement has been heavily criticized by many people who are opposed to international trade and investment rules generally.  Would making this kind of dispute settlement available to entities other than "investors" make it more palatable to the critics?  This is from an article in Slate: One

Congressional committee hearings are often interesting, but they are difficult to blog about.  The Q & A is the best part, but an official transcript -- which is much more blog-friendly than typing things up as they go along -- doesn't come out for a while.  So, that&

From Eyes on Trade: Today's edition of Inside U.S. Trade (subscription only) reports that the Prime Minister of New Zealand, one of the negotiating parties of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), stated that a NAFTA-style investor-state lawsuit provision will likely be excluded from the TPP: In a Nov.

It's the preliminary objections hearing in Commerce Group Corp. and San Sebastian Gold  Mines, Inc. v. Republic of El Salvador(ICSID Case No. ARB/09/17). Go here for the feed: http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=Announcements&

Via a Luke Peterson tweet, I see that the Mobil v. Canada ICSID hearing will be going on this week, starting tomorrow (Tuesday), and is open to the public.  No webcasting as far as I can tell, unfortunately.  You have to make your way down there. One issue that is

I did some previous posts (see, e.g., here) about the investment claim brought by Philip Morris against Uruguay under a Uruguay-Switzerland BIT.  Todd Weiler, who knows a thing or two about investment claims, has written a legal opinion for Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, in which he examines

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch notes: If the [Korea-U.S. FTA] were to go into effect, at least 79 Korea-based corporations with 270 establishments across the United States would obtain new rights to demand taxpayer compensation through challenges of U.S. federal, and state laws in foreign tribunals.

Via a Luke Peterson tweet, I see that Uruguay is planning to weaken its anti-tobacco law (see this old post for more), in response to a Phillip Morris investment treaty challenge: Uruguay's government yesterday said it would tweak the legislation, or possibly draft a new law, to fend