This article examines a contract-based dispute, P&ID v. Nigeria, which highlights issues of corruption and lack of transparency in this type of dispute settlement. It concludes that, given the significant public interests at stake in investor–state arbitration, including the possibility that arbitration may facilitate the corrupt transfer of public funds to private actors, they should not be conducted in private.
Tackling corruption is a crucial step in meeting the objectives set out in SDG 16 on “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions” and for achieving the SDGs overall. Canada’s investment treaties could play a valuable role in addressing corruption. The piece draws from examples such as Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) program and examines some of the asymmetries inherent in the current IIA regime. The author analyzes some of the language used in Canada’s more recent treaties, such as CETA and the FIPAs with Moldova and Kosovo, and what lessons can be drawn from these and other agreements.
Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October 18, 2018. […]
Siemens A.G. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October […]
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website […]
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/3 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s and on this website on […]