Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

congo_bigoil

A worker is seen at the Port autonome de Pointe Noire, in the Republic of Congo on December 17, 2019. The oil-producing city of Pointe Noire is trying to recover from a long-run economic crisis.  (Photo: Samir Tounsi/AFP via Getty Images)

Missing From the Climate Talks: Corporate Powers to Sue Governments That Limit Pollution

Allowing extractive industries to file expensive lawsuits over environmental regulations could undermine whatever agreements might be reached at COP26 in Glasgow.

Manuel Pérez Rocha

 by Inequality.org

International negotiators are meeting in Glasgow, Scotland to develop solutions to the climate change threat. But one major obstacle to global sustainability will be largely absent from the discussions: the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system.

This system gives transnational corporations the power to sue governments over actions—including policies to address climate change—that reduce the value of their foreign investments. Allowing corporations to continue to wield this power could undermine whatever agreements might be reached in Glasgow.

To effectively combat climate change, governments around the world will need the flexibility to pursue a wide range of actions—without the threat of provoking expensive corporate lawsuits.

How does this system work? Clauses in more than 2,600 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) allow foreign investors to bypass domestic courts and sue sovereign states in international tribunals for millions—and even billions—of dollars.

The World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is the most commonly used of these arbitration tribunals, followed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Made up of highly paid, three-person panels of corporate lawyers, these tribunals should not be mistaken for courts of law. This privatized system has little regard for precedent, truth, or justice.

Companies in the highly lucrative natural resource extraction sector take greatest advantage of ISDS. Oil, gas, and mining companies have filed around 25 percent of all known claims to date, and 29 percent of all ICSID claims in fiscal year 2021.

tgt

The growth of suits brought by extractive industries has been exponential. Since 1995, when an extractive industry brought their first case under an international agreement, they have brought claims demanding at least $195 billion and won awards totaling at least $73.2 billion. These figures are based on available data from ICSID and UNCTAD. Other arbitration tribunals do not publish information about cases or awards.

jkj

Extractives corporations not only use the ISDS system the most, they also receive the largest monetary awards. Out of the 14 known awards for more than $1 billion, 11 pertain to oil, gas and mining.

There are at least 82 known pending ISDS cases brought by extractive industries. Of the 42 where information is available, the companies are demanding a total of $99.1 billion ($71.1 billion by mining companies and $28.1 billion by oil and gas companies).

Notably there are 40 pending cases where the amounts being claimed are not available, so the figures above are only partial. But from the information available there are at least 14 pending cases for more than $1 billion, with ludicrous suits against Congo for $27 billion and Colombia for $16.5 billion topping the list. Another case in which a corporation is demanding $16 billion, TC v. USA, for the cancelation of the controversial Keystone pipeline by the Biden´s administration, is not included in the table below because it has not yet been registered at ICSID. (Source: ICSID and UNCTAD)

In their lawsuits, corporations most often cite protections in FTAs and BITs against "indirect expropriation." This is interpreted to mean regulations and other government actions that reduce the value of an investment. Hence, corporations can sue governments over the enforcement of environmental, health, and other public interest laws or measures arising from democratic or judicial processes. While investment tribunals cannot force a government to repeal laws and regulations, time-consuming, costly litigation and the threat of massive awards for damages often put a "chilling effect" on responsible policy-making.

There has been some movement in recent years to roll back these excessive corporate powers. The European Court of Justice, for example, has ruled that European Union energy companies will not be able to use the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) to sue EU governments. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced NAFTA eliminates ISDS between Canada and the United States.

But for the most part, international agreements that allow corporations headquartered in rich countries to continue to wield this weapon against development country governments remain in force, reinforcing neo-colonial North-South relations.

The imbalance of who uses the system the most is already very stark. Most extractive companies that have used ISDS are from countries in Western Europe or the United States, Canada, or Australia. By contrast, countries in the regions of the Global South are the most sued.

 

 

A majority of extractives-related ISDS cases have been brought by companies headquartered in just five countries. The United States alone is home to companies that have filed 53 out of the 194 total oil, mining, and gas cases.

 

 

The Institute for Policy Studies report Extraction Casino notes that for transnational extractive industries that pollute the planet and contribute to climate change, ISDS is "yet another opportunity to strike it rich through reckless, casino-style gambling, given the recourse they have to bring suits within a system in which the deck is heavily stacked in their favor, and produce a chilling effect on regulations and policies that address climate change."

To effectively combat climate change, governments around the world will need the flexibility to pursue a wide range of actions—without the threat of provoking expensive corporate lawsuits. The ISDS system should not stand in the way of responsible policies to address this existential global threat.

The elimination of the ISDS system should be on the table in Glasgow. At a minimum, negotiators should agree to independent audits of international investment treaties that include ISDS clauses, with meaningful public participation. On the basis of these audits, these agreements should either be cancelled or rewritten in terms that put people's rights and the environment first.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Manuel Pérez Rocha

Manuel Pérez Rocha

Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Acidification of Arctic Happening Up to 4 Times Faster Than Other Oceans

The research followed reports that the Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the Earth as a whole.

Julia Conley ·


Despite Nearly 80% of Voters in Favor, House Dems Stall on Stock Trading Ban

"Existing ethics laws do not go far enough to prevent members of Congress from using the information they have access to for personal gain. No more excuses. No more delays. It's time for action."

Jessica Corbett ·


Analysis Exposes Taxpayer Billions 'Wasted' on Dead-End Carbon Capture Schemes

Food & Water Watch said "this track record should elicit serious concern" as Congress dumps billions more into failed carbon capture technology.

Jake Johnson ·


House Dems Urge Biden to Push for Removal of Climate-Denying World Bank President

"We need a World Bank Group leader who fully appreciates the threat of climate change and the need to accelerate the global transition to a clean just energy future to improve living standards, reduce poverty, and encourage sustainable growth."

Kenny Stancil ·


'Let's Pass Medicare for All,' Says Jayapal as Survey Spotlights Failures of For-Profit System

"When the 'all-time low' of uninsured Americans is still 26 MILLION, something needs to change," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

Julia Conley ·

Common Dreams Logo