ISDS allows foreign investors to sue our Government
Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Thursday April 4, 2019: A group of seven Special Rapporteurs in the United Nations system have told another UN body – the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) - that Investor-State Dispute Settlement in trade agreements need systemic reform, not only procedural improvements.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019: “The Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement and separate Investment Agreement signed today still give special rights to foreign investors to bypass national courts and sue governments for millions of dollars in international tribunals if they can argue that a change in law or policy would harm their investment, known as Investor-State
Monday March 25, 2019: The Australian reports that Federal Labor Trade Spokesperson Jason Clare has confirmed that Labor in government would seek to remove Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses from the Peru and Indonesia FTAs, which the Morrison government has signed but not ratified.
Friday March 22, 2019: “It has taken a second FOI case and another two years to reveal that Australian taxpayers were only awarded half of the costs of defending Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws against tobacco giant Philip Morris in March 2017.
Wednesday March 20, 2019: Lucy Manne interviews AFTINET Convener Dr Patricia Ranald on the impacts of trade agreements on the environment. They discuss the growing use of ISDS cases by mining companies to sue governments for millions of dollars to prevent regulation to address climate change, and the global movement against this.
Hear the full podcast here.
February 4, 2019: US mining company Kappes, Cassiday & Associates’ (KCA) made a US$300 million arbitration claim last December against Guatemala to the World Bank´s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) over alleged violations of the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).
January 23, 2019: Yesterday the ABC reported that Clive Palmer has moved ownership of his company to New Zealand, claimed to be an NZ company, and threatened to use an Australia-New Zealand trade agreement to sue Australian taxpayers for $45 billion because he claims the Western Australian government intends to pass legislation that would disadvantage his company.