Statement from the Stop ISDS campaign to the government of President Gustavo Petro
Members of the “Stop ISDS” campaign, including social, environmental, grassroots, labor, and human rights organizations, as well as movements defending water, life, the commons, and community rights, express our support for Colombian government’s announcement on March 26, 2026, regarding Colombia’s withdrawal from the investment arbitration regime to protect transnational investors. We share a deep conviction: it is unacceptable that legitimate public decisions to protect the planet, rural and urban lands, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and public health should be subject to international mechanisms designed to prioritize the greed of foreign investors at the expense of the public interest. This is the case with claims that transnational corporations have filed against Colombia, such as Aris Mining, Glencore, Eco Oro, Galway Gold, and Red Eagle over protections for the water, páramos, and rivers of Santander; La Guajira; Antioquia; and Caldas. International organizations have warned that the investment protection regime also entrenches imbalances between investors’ rights and their responsibilities to states and communities, and that it is necessary to safeguard the right to regulate in the public interest.
In the 2000s, the administrations of presidents Álvaro Uribe and Juan Manuel Santos rushed through bilateral investment and free trade agreements without any public debate or environmental or social impact assessments. One result of this wave of international agreements is the flood of arbitration claims. From 2016 to March 2026, Colombia has faced 29 Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims before international arbitration tribunals—90% brought to the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)—making Colombia the most sued country in the world in 2018. The investors involved are principally from Europe (52%), and the United States and Canada (45%). Over 40% of claims against Colombia arise from the mining sector, followed by financial activities, and information and communications. In six cases where investors prevailed, Colombia paid or agreed to pay $412 million—a figure exceeding the Ministry of Agriculture’s budget for 2026. Ten pending claims total over $12.2 billion, equivalent to nearly half of the public debt service projected for the year. Legal defense costs are an additional expense: in seven claims that have been concluded, Colombia spent $27.5 million in fees and arbitration costs, including being ordered to pay $5.5 million to the law firm contracted by South32—Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer— after the arbitration panel ruled against the state.
We denounce how ISDS functions as an arbitrary, asymmetrical, and profoundly costly system. Even when states are not found liable, proceedings involve protracted litigation, specialized legal teams, and millions of dollars in legal fees, arbitration costs, and international administrative expenses, diverting public resources that should be used to protect human rights, strengthen institutions, and address urgent needs of the population. Furthermore, ISDS claims—or the mere threat of a claim—can dissuade the State from adopting necessary measures to protect the public interest, the environment and public health, and to ensure respect for peoples’ rights, a phenomenon known as the “chilling effect.” Proposed reforms to the investor protection system from the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) acknowledge serious problems regarding costs, duration, lack of predictability, inconsistencies in decisions, and questions regarding the system’s legitimacy. As a result, this is not merely about debating rulings in individual claims, but rather about challenging a mechanism tailored to enable transnational corporations to intensify environmental destruction, perpetuate impunity, plunder the public purse, and economically punish the defense of land, nature, and life, thereby intensifying violence against land and environment defenders.
As a result, the government’s announcement must translate into concrete and coherent decisions: a comprehensive review that entails a social and popular audit of bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements that include investor protection clauses; the termination of these agreements; and Colombia’s withdrawal from ICSID and other investor-state dispute settlement rules and institutions. These are necessary steps to strengthen peoples’ self-determination, restore democratic sovereignty, ensure the state’s regulatory capacity, and place real limits on the power that foreign corporations have over the country’s future. We also call on Latin American peoples, organizations, and governments to take similar steps and build a regional response to a system that has subordinated social, environmental, and climate justice to private profit. Protecting communities, nature, and land should not be viewed as economically risky measures, but rather as the inalienable obligation of states throughout the region.
