ISDS Case Map
climate
Transform Trade charity says British-based companies are among main bringers of cases based on bilateral investment treaties.
What recent case law and treaty reforms may mean for the future of investment arbitration in the energy sector.
Australia deal and Energy Charter Treaty show why we must be able to hold government accountable for trade.
An international treaty that hamstrings governments’ ability to make climate policy is still in force – and an attempted overhaul has not worked. This is why the EU and its member states need to walk away from the Energy Charter Treaty.
The text of the agreement in principle to modernize the Energy Charter Treaty leaves unanswered too many crucial questions about the possibility of further fossil fuel carveouts and the exact timing of its entry into force.
It’s a portent of claims Australia may face from British companies invested in Australia’s fossil-fuel industries if the United Kingdom gets its way and joins the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Reforms are essential to ensure investment treaties and associated investor-state disputes don’t hinder countries’ efforts to tackle climate change.
Existing international investment agreements providing for investor–state dispute settlement fail to advance climate goals and can effectively hinder states’ climate action.
The draft law on the “termination of the of the Energy Charter Treaty” and its protocols was agreed by the Polish government on 10 August and sent to the country’s lower chamber.
