630 civil society groups sound alarm over wave of Covid-19 claims in 'corporate courts'
Countries could be facing 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. Cases could arise from actions that many governments have taken to save lives, stem the pandemic, protect jobs, counter economic disaster and ensure peoples' basic needs are met. Threats of cases have already been made in Peru over the suspension of charging on toll roads, and law firms are actively advising corporations of the options open to them. 630 organisations from across the world, representing hundreds of millions of people, are calling on governments in an open letter to urgently take action to shut down this threat. The letter below is published today.
To Governments:
We are writing to you today to urge you to take a lead in ensuring countries around the world do not face a wave of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases arising from actions taken to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing economic crisis.
Globally, some governments are taking actions to save lives, stem the pandemic, protect jobs, counter economic disaster and ensure peoples' basic needs are met. The level of these actions has been unprecedented in modern times and the need for these actions has been clear. But the expansive reach of the ISDS system could open such critical government actions to claims for millions in compensation from foreign investors. The numbers of such claims could also be unprecedented and impose massive financial burdens on governments struggling under the burden of devastating health and economic crises.
ISDS in various forms is written into many trade and investment agreements. It allows foreign investors – and foreign investors alone – to sue governments in secretive tribunals outside of the national legal system for amounts far higher than are likely to be available to them in domestic courts.
The lawyers, who profit enormously from the ISDS system, are already fishing for corporate clients interested in using ISDS tribunals to extract large sums from governments over actions they have taken in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Law firms,[1]trade experts,[2] UN bodies[3] and human rights experts[4] have already predicted an imminent wave of ISDS cases. Specialist law journals have speculated that: "the past few weeks may mark the beginning of a boom" of ISDS cases. [5] Crisis situations in the past, such as the Argentine financial crisis or the Arab Spring, have led to many cases.
Cases could arise from actions that many governments have taken, such as those with the aim of:
• restricting and closing business activities to limit the spread of the virus and protect workers
• securing resources for health systems by requisitioning use of private hospital facilities,
putting private healthcare providers under public control, or requiring manufacturers to produce ventilators
• mandating relief from mortgage payments or rent for households and businesses
• preventing foreign takeovers of strategic businesses stricken by the crisis
• ensuring access to clean water for hand-washing and sanitation by freezing utility bills and suspending disconnections
• ensuring medicines, tests and vaccines are affordable
• debt restructuring
The damage from a COVID-related wave of ISDS cases could be immense. From among the 1,023 known ISDS cases, thirteen have resulted in awards or settlements of more than US$1billion, including for lost future profits.[6] By the end of 2018, states worldwide had been ordered or agreed to pay investors in publicly known ISDS cases the amount of US$88 billion.[7] Some developing countries have billions outstanding in pending ISDS claims.
At a time when government resources are stretched to the limit in responding to the crisis, public money should not be diverted from saving lives, jobs and livelihoods into paying ISDS awards or legal fees to fight a claim. And given that the battle against COVID-19 will continue, a spate of cases now could result in a 'regulatory chilling' effect, in which governments water down, postpone or withdraw actions to tackle the pandemic from the fear of such payments, which could be deadly.
In order to prevent this, we urge governments to immediately and urgently take the following steps, before the first cases are brought:
1. Permanently restrict the use of ISDS in all its forms in respect of claims that the state
considers to concern COVID-19 related measures.
2. Suspend all ISDS cases on any issue against any government while it is fighting COVID-19 crises, when capacity needs to be focused on the pandemic response.
3. Ensure that no public money is spent paying corporations for ISDS awards during the pandemic.
4. Stop negotiating, signing, and or ratifying any new agreements that include ISDS.
5. Terminate existing agreements with ISDS, ensuring that 'survival clauses' do not allow cases to be brought subsequently.
6. In light of threats exposed by the pandemic, comprehensively review existing agreements that include ISDS to see if they are fit for purpose.
More information on how to implement these actions is available in the annex to this letter. We urge you to take immediate action to ensure that the duty of governments to regulate in the public interest is safeguarded and put beyond the scope of ISDS claims.
More information:
Notes 1-7: see annex
The letter online, including list of signatories
Update 19 October 2020: The organisations launched a short video about this subject to raise awareness about the ongoing threat.
For more information
Read more about this subject
-
Dossier /
Rights for People, Rules for Corporations – Stop ISDS!
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.
-
Publication / 23 May 2023
-
Publication / 7 July 2022
-
News / 11 October 2019
Rights for people, rules for corporations: the case of Indonesia
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’ (ISDS) clauses that are included in many such treaties.
-
Letter / 26 June 2020
Letter to governments over wave of Covid-19 claims in 'corporate courts'
Countries could be facing 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. 630 organisations from across the world, representing hundreds of millions of people, are calling on governments in an open letter to urgently take action to shut down this threat.
-
External link / 15 June 2022
Open letter to Trade Ministers at the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Joint CSO call to all WTO Trade Ministers to not accept the current draft of Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement and demand a real Waiver
-
Press release / 23 May 2023
60th anniversary of Dutch bilateral investment treaties no cause for celebration
On 23 May, the Netherlands celebrates 60 years of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The first BIT was signed with Tunisia in 1963. These treaties were intended to make an important contribution to protecting foreign investments by Dutch companies. A study by SOMO, Both ENDS and the Transnational Institute (TNI), however, shows that in practice they mainly give multinationals a powerful instrument that has far-reaching consequences people and the environment worldwide.
-
News / 11 October 2019
Rights for people, rules for corporations: the case of Paraguay
Indigenous communities in Paraguay saw their attempts to regain their ancestral lands thwarted by German investors. 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’ (ISDS) clauses that are included in many such treaties.
-
Publication / 30 October 2023
-
News / 13 June 2022
The WTO and intellectual property rights: what it means for us
Intellectual property law is regulated at various levels around the world. At the international level, intellectual property rights are mainly laid down within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in trade agreements. But what does this in practice mean for us? With this infographic, we've visualized what happens when a holder of intellectual property rights - usually a big company - thinks his rights are being violated.
-
Dossier /
Investment treaties
Investment treaties must be inclusive, sustainable and fair. That means that they must not put the interests of companies before those of people and their living environment.
-
News / 11 November 2024
Kenya Terminates Bilateral Investment Treaty with the Netherlands
The government of Kenya has officially terminated its bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, marking a significant win for economic justice and environmental protection. Kenya’s decision reflects a growing global trend of rethinking outdated treaties that often prioritize corporate interests over public welfare. The Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development recently confirmed that Kenya unilaterally ended the treaty in December 2023, rendering it inoperative from 11 June 2024. Kenya now joins South Africa, Tanzania, and Burkina Faso as the fourth African country to terminate its BIT with the Netherlands.
-
External link / 19 October 2020
Alarm over possible wave COVID19 corporate court cases via ISDS
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.
-
Publication / 12 April 2022
-
Dossier /
Make Innovations work for all: reframing Intellectual Property Rights
It sounds so logical: patents and other intellectual property rights protect investments in innovations, allowing more innovations to be made from which the whole world can benefit. Such as new medicines or drought-resistant crops. But in practice, these property rights often have the opposite effect, hindering access to innovations for those who need them the most.
-
Publication / 15 February 2022
-
Event / 21 February 2022, 16:00 - 17:30
Webinar and launch of new publication about EU-Mercosur
What is the EU-Mercosur association treaty and why is it controversial? What could be the implications of the treaty for people and their livelihoods both in EU and Mercosur countries? For more information about these and other issues, see our new publication and join our interactive webinar next week!
Register here
-
Letter / 30 June 2022
Open letter to the European Commission concerning plant variety rights in the Free Trade Agreement with Indonesia
Today, almost 90 organisations and networks from around the world, including Both ENDS, sent a letter to the European Commission to urge the EU to stop including UPOV91 in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The main objective of UPOV91 is to further erode traditional seeds rights and to regulate local seed markets in the interest of internationally operating seed companies.
This matter is urgent because currently, the EU and Indonesia are negotiating an FTA. Including UPOV91 in this FTA means that Indonesia will have to change its policies, which will take away the farmers' rights to:
- breed, save and exchange all seeds and other planting material
- participate in decisions concerning seed improvement/ breeding, selection, quality standards, pricing, production, distribution and diversity
- customary practice especially in regard to indigenous seed
- be protected from being sold fake and inappropriate seed
- have a true choice between the use of certified and seed from fellow farmer managed seed systems. -
Letter / 30 June 2022
Open letter to the Indonesian Government concerning plant variety rights in the Free Trade Agreement with Indonesia
On behalf of almost 90 CSO's and networks including Both ENDS, IGJ has sent a letter to the Indonesian government about the free trade agreement with the European Union. In this agreement, the EU pushes Indonesia to align its plant variety protection laws with UPOV 91, which would threaten farmers' access to seeds, food souvereignty and agrobiodiversity. The main objective of UPOV91 is to further erode traditional seeds rights and to regulate local seed markets in the interest of internationally operating seed companies.Including UPOV91 in this FTA means that Indonesia will have to change its policies, which will take away the farmers' rights to:
- breed, save and exchange all seeds and other planting material
- participate in decisions concerning seed improvement/ breeding, selection, quality standards, pricing, production, distribution and diversity
- customary practice especially in regard to indigenous seed
- be protected from being sold fake and inappropriate seed
- have a true choice between the use of certified and seed from fellow farmer managed seed systemsThe joint organisations therefore call upon the Indonesian government to resist the ask of the EU to comply with UPOV 91.
-
News / 24 October 2022
Termination of Energy Charter Treaty by the Netherlands helps global energy transition
The decision of Minister for Climate and Energy Rob Jetten to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is good news for the energy transition in the Netherlands and beyond. Governments of countries that are party to this treaty can therefore shape the transition to sustainable energy without having to fear claims by Dutch-based businesses.