Selected Statements and Actions Against Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

Those rules authorize the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague to designate an “appointing authority” who—absent agreement by the parties—can select the sole arbitrator (or, in the case of a three-member tribunal, the presiding arbitrator, where the arbitrators nominated by each of the parties cannot agree on a presiding arbitrator). [...] Due to the significant importance the cabinet attaches to achieving Dutch and European climate goals and modernizing the dispute resolution mechanism, as well as the political and societal concerns that have arisen, the cabinet concludes that it wants to pursue withdrawal from the ECT within the EU framework.” –R. [...] 29, 2016 Global Arbitration Review “In a lecture in Miami, Alexis Mourre has suggested the arbitration community is ‘losing’ the fight to ensure the survival of ISDS, endangering the future of commercial arbitration in the process, and should instead contemplate a return to the contractual protection of investments… the investor-state dispute settlement system is in crisis because ‘we—the defender. [...] The European Commission should promote the national systems for investor’s claims instead of trying to impose on the Union and the member states a jurisdiction not bound outside the decisions both of the ECJ and the supreme courts of the member states... [...] We have to preserve the right of the state to set and apply its own standards, to maintain the impartiality of the justice system and to allow the people of France, and the world, to assert their values.” –French Secretary of State for Foreign Trade Matthias Fekl in a speech to the French Senate on the TTIP; Nov.