Both ENDS
Indigenous communities in Paraguay saw their attempts to regain their ancestral lands thwarted by German investors. In Indonesia, US-based mining companies succeeded to roll back new laws that were meant to boost the country’s economic development and protect its forests. This is the level of impact that investment treaties can have on social, environmental and economic development and rights. Why? Because of the ‘Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement’ clauses that are included in many such treaties.
Standing in Belém during COP30, I felt the weight of the moment. We came to the Amazon hoping for decisive progress on phasing out fossil fuels, yet the final outcome fell far short of the ambition science and justice demand. The agreement brought welcome commitments on adaptation finance and global indicators, but it refused to confront the structural forces that make climate action so difficult.
SOMO and Both ENDS strongly condemn the newly revealed investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) case filed by Petrogas, an Omani oil and gas company operating two shallow-water gas fields in the Dutch North Sea, against the Netherlands under the Netherlands-Oman bilateral investment treaty (BIT).
Last week, the European Commission presented a proposal to reform the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which forms part of the draft text for Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the USA. Yet, it is fraught with problems, as those few adjustments do not even address the heart of the ISDS-problem.
Countries might face a wave of cases from transnational corporations suing governments over actions taken to respond to the Covid pandemic using a system known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. In June 2020, 630 organisations already called on governments to urgently take action to shut down this threat. With this video we invigorate this message, as the threat, unfortunately, has not decreased.
Earlier this week, EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström presented a set of proposals for reforming investment protection standards and the dispute settlement mechanism ISDS (investor-to-state arbitration). The Seattle to Brussels Network (S2B), of which Both ENDS is a member, thinks that Malmström’s proposed adjustments are not far-reaching enough. They will not significantly reform the ISDS system. The organisation has published an analysis report on this.
Almost 150,000 organisations and individuals who participated in a public consultation on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) of the European Commission, made a strong statement. According to EU's own reporting, 97% does not want the controversial investor-to-state-dispute settlement (ISDS)-mechanism to be part of the trade deal. Worldwide, more than 3000 international investment agreements with ISDS exist, of which the Netherlands has more than 90s - predominantly with developing countries. Many of these countries have suffered damage caused by ISDS. This has started to set off the alarm bells in Europe and should definetely also have consequences for the already existing agreements.
Press release
Just before being elected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker from Luxemburg, has spoken out against ISDS. The ‘Investor to State Dispute Settlement’ would be a part of the proposed EU-US trade agreement TTIP. It would deal with conflicts between investors that feel disadvantaged and states they hold responsible. Those conflicts would not be taken to regular courts but to a special dispute settlement tribunal. Mr Juncker is clearly opposed to such a provision.
