Lords quiz legal experts on investor protections and contentious Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions

Through ISDS investors from one country can bring proceedings directly against the country in which they have invested. The parties to the dispute choose an independent, ad hoc panel of arbitrators to hear their case. ISDS has proved politically contentious for several reasons. One key concern is that ISDS may inhibit or constrain a country’s ability to regulate in areas such as climate protection and labour rights.  

The evidence session will focus on the extent to which investors need protections; the risks and benefits of ISDS as a model to deliver such protections; what the CPTPP provisions on ISDS mean for the UK; and what Australia and New Zealand’s likely ‘ask’ will be during negotiations for bilateral agreements.

The online evidence session can be followed live at www.parliamentlive.tv from 11am tomorrow (Wednesday 19 May 2021).

Witnesses

• Dr Jonathan Bonnitcha, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of New South Wales
• Lise Johnson, Head of Investment Law and Policy, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
• Toby Landau QC, Duxton Hill Chambers

Possible questions

• To what extent should trade agreements provide protections for foreign investors, and what are the main models for the settling of disputes?
• What does ISDS, as a mechanism for investor protection, aim to achieve? What are the concrete benefits, if any, to investors?
• Are there any risks to the UK Government of including ISDS provisions in trade agreements?
• How common and necessary is it to have ISDS mechanisms between two developed economies with robust legal systems?
• The CPTPP agreement the UK is seeking to accede to includes a comprehensive investment protection chapter with ISDS provisions. What are its main features?
• In your view, what will Australia and New Zealand push for on investment protection generally, and ISDS specifically?
• What are the alternatives to ISDS and how practical are they?