LAW STUDENTS SAY NO TO ISDS.
Join law students from across the U.S. in opposing the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which corrodes human rights, environmental protections, and national sovereignty across the globe.
Dear U.S. Trade Representative Greer,
We write to express our concern about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in existing U.S. trade and investment agreements.
As students entering the legal system, we believe that ISDS creates an uneven playing field that threatens some of the foundational principles of justice under the law.
ISDS grants multinational corporations privileges and protections far beyond those afforded to domestic companies, private citizens, or their sovereign governments, by empowering them to sue governments in secret tribunals for millions and even billions of taxpayer dollars simply for putting sound public policy in place.
Unlike traditional legal systems, the corporate lawyers who typically serve as ISDS arbitrators can switch between representing parties and deciding cases, a phenomenon known as “double-hatting.” These arbitrators are not bound by jurisprudence and can decide cases in unexpected and even contradictory ways, adding to the unreliable nature of the ISDS system.
Highlighting its unfair nature, only corporations can sue governments under ISDS rules, not vice versa. These governments are then forced to defend themselves in costly proceedings, so even a “win” can mean taxpayer money is diverted from education, infrastructure, health care, and other social services to a foreign corporation. 1
UN experts have found that ISDS runs counter to the international human rights obligations that were built to establish a common global framework for all legal practitioners, policymakers, and communities. 2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that ISDS may prevent countries from taking urgent steps to fight climate change. 3
More than 200 U.S. organizations, 300 state legislators from across party lines, 41 members of the U.S. Congress, and over 300 professors of law and economics have called for the removal of ISDS from existing trade and investment agreements.
We call on you to use all means at your disposal to remove Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses from all existing trade and investment agreements.
Signed,
—
1. See: Stiglitz, J. (2013, Nov. 8). Developing Countries are Right to Resist Restrictive Trade Agreements. The Guardian, and Wang, C., Ning, J., & Zhang, X. (2021, July 22). International Investment and Indigenous Peoples’ Environment: A Survey of ISDS Cases from 2000 to 2020. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15).
2. The United Nations. (2015, August 5). Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Document A/70/285.
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf.
The Worst of the Worst: Egregious Corporate Attacks on Public Interest Policies
Public Citizen
Primer on International Investment Treaties and Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Columbia Center for Sustainable Development
International trade: UN expert calls for abolition of Investor-State dispute settlement arbitrations
United Nations Human Rights
Dear U.S. Trade Representative Greer,
We write to express our concern about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in existing U.S. trade and investment agreements.
As students entering the legal system, we believe that ISDS creates an uneven playing field that threatens some of the foundational principles of justice under the law.
ISDS grants multinational corporations privileges and protections far beyond those afforded to domestic companies, private citizens, or their sovereign governments, by empowering them to sue governments in secret tribunals for millions and even billions of taxpayer dollars simply for putting sound public policy in place.
Unlike traditional legal systems, the corporate lawyers who typically serve as ISDS arbitrators can switch between representing parties and deciding cases, a phenomenon known as “double-hatting.” These arbitrators are not bound by jurisprudence and can decide cases in unexpected and even contradictory ways, adding to the unreliable nature of the ISDS system.
Highlighting its unfair nature, only corporations can sue governments under ISDS rules, not vice versa. These governments are then forced to defend themselves in costly proceedings, so even a “win” can mean taxpayer money is diverted from education, infrastructure, health care, and other social services to a foreign corporation. 1
UN experts have found that ISDS runs counter to the international human rights obligations that were built to establish a common global framework for all legal practitioners, policymakers, and communities. 2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that ISDS may prevent countries from taking urgent steps to fight climate change. 3
More than 200 U.S. organizations, 300 state legislators from across party lines, 41 members of the U.S. Congress, and over 300 professors of law and economics have called for the removal of ISDS from existing trade and investment agreements.
We call on you to use all means at your disposal to remove Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses from all existing trade and investment agreements.
Signed,
—
1. See: Stiglitz, J. (2013, Nov. 8). Developing Countries are Right to Resist Restrictive Trade Agreements. The Guardian, and Wang, C., Ning, J., & Zhang, X. (2021, July 22). International Investment and Indigenous Peoples’ Environment: A Survey of ISDS Cases from 2000 to 2020. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15).
2. The United Nations. (2015, August 5). Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Document A/70/285.
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf.
Many free trade and investment agreements allow multinational corporations to undermine democracy via a secret pseudo-court system known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).
This system empowers multinational corporations to sue governments before panels of corporate lawyers.
Visit the links below to learn more about ISDS.
The Worst of the Worst: Egregious Corporate Attacks on Public Interest Policies, Public Citizen
Primer on International Investment Treaties and Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Columbia Center for Sustainable Development
International trade: UN expert calls for abolition of Investor-State dispute settlement arbitrations, United Nations Human Rights
SIGN THE LETTER:
