ISDS Case Map
zz-isds-show
What recent case law and treaty reforms may mean for the future of investment arbitration in the energy sector.
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.
Damages of £737 million are being claimed by GreenX across the two arbitrations which relate to both the Jan Karski and Debiensko mines in Poland.
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.
In recent years, in certain investment arbitration proceedings, States have brought counterclaims alleging that foreign investors had failed to comply with corporate social responsibility principles. In all but two cases, these counterclaims have been unsuccessful.
This action would allow for Ecuadorean accounts in these jurisdictions to be frozen and trading payments and receivables to be seized, in order to satisfy the outstanding award debt.
A US court upheld a tribunal’s $8.75 billion award to U.S. oil producer ConocoPhillips over the expropriation of its Venezuelan oil assets, granting a default judgment in the case.
A recent ICSID tribunal found a developing state liable for breaching the full protection and security obligation due to its inability to protect a foreign investment against terrorist attacks in a remote deserted area.
Devas Multimedia had won an arbitration award of $1.2 billion after the Indian government terminated its satellite deal with Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of the ISRO in 2011.
