Spotlight
Investor Treaty Arbitration: The Accountability Gap-Regulatory Sovereignty, and Communities Left Out of the Room
ORGANIZED BY
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
15-Sep
17:00-17:30
Meeting Room A
The growing use of investment treaty arbitration to challenge regulation/policy decisions in public interest, and the near-total exclusion of affected communities from these proceedings. A dispute resolution mechanism that determines the future of a community’s land, resources, and livelihoods while ignoring the very same community represents an accountability gap that this session directly addresses.
Overview
Investor-State dispute settlement gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in international arbitration when regulatory decisions affect their investments. The same system has no equivalent mechanism for the communities whose land, water, and livelihoods those investments affect. This fireside chat examines that accountability gap through the lens of decided cases, from the landmark Urbaser counterclaim and the regulatory chill produced by Bilcon v. Canada, to the USD 5.9 billion Reko Diq award that left Balochistan's communities without standing or remedy. It asks what responsible investment structuring, second-generation treaty design, and reformed arbitral procedure must look like if the gap is to close.
Why it matters
States across Asia-Pacific have ratified core UN and ILO conventions. Simultaneously, those same States have signed bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that grant foreign investors the right to sue governments in international arbitration when regulatory measures affect their investments. Understanding Investor-State arbitration is a prerequisite for building accountability and evenness in these international obligations.
Who should attend?
Government legal advisers and trade ministry officials from Asia-Pacific States.
In-house counsel and legal risk officers at companies with significant investment footprints in South and Southeast Asia.
International arbitration practitioners and investment treaty lawyers.
National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and ombudspersons from the region.
Development finance institutions and multilateral lenders.
Civil society organisations working on land rights, indigenous peoples' rights, and environmental justice in the region.
What participants will gain
The system is structurally skewed and that is a design choice, not an accident.
States have more tools than they think, but only if the treaty is drafted right.
Communities affected by investment disputes need a seat at the table and the system must be redesigned to give them one.