The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is currently working on how to reform international investment treaties, focusing in particular on those treaties’ provisions enabling investors to sue governments in international arbitration. As an observer organization in this process, CCSI has emphasized that in the context of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform, it is important to first consider what it is that investment treaties aim to achieve, and only then to consider what form(s) of dispute settlement will best advance those objectives. This means not only looking at reform of the existing ISDS mechanism, but also alternatives to it. Having identified various concerns about ISDS, UNCITRAL is now taking stock of potential reform options, and will consider this fall which options to pursue and in what order. To contribute to UNCITRAL’s work, CCSI, together with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), submitted this document outlining potential reform options and considerations.
Third Party Rights in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Options for Reform (also available in Spanish) builds on work highlighting the impact of ISDS on access to justice for third parties, and briefly elaborates on how investor-state arbitrations can affect third parties, while also offering examples of procedural tools that states could use to better safeguard those third parties’ rights.
Jesse Coleman, Lise Johnson, Brooke Güven, Lorenzo Cotula & Thierry Berger,
Third-Party Rights in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Options for Reform,
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/150
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Securities Law Commons, Transnational Law Commons