Originally from Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law - Volume 12

Preview Page

PANEL 2

Some of the changes seen in the CETA gives us the latest “state-of-the-art” thinking from Canada and the EU.  It includes a general exemption provision that arguably narrows the protection of government decision-making under treatment- no-less-favorable clauses.  It also includes the much-vaunted investment court model, which might grant so much legitimacy to the “court” that it will become very difficult for State parties to “correct” decisions they don’t like, as they can currently do through various means.  There’s also the transparency rule for third-party funding, which could normalize the practice in a way not desired by opponents.  We are also seeing new developments in the Indian and Brazilian Model BIT.  This panel seeks to discuss and debate some of these developments to evaluate whether they would satisfy skeptics and opponents of investment arbitration.

MR. KABIR DUGGAL: So, I would like to welcome everybody to Panel 2. I am Kabir Duggal. I am an associate at Baker & McKenzie. I got promoted. I used to be the editor and now I am a Co Chair, so good for me. Let me give a shout out to Rekha Rangachari, who is not in here but should be in here shortly.  Rekha is now the new editor for our book. So, for all the panelists and authors, you will get an e mail from her. Please read it, don’t delete it.

So, for Panel 2, the topic that we are going to be discussing is “Be Careful What You Ask For: Can Recent Changes to BIT Models Satisfy ISDS Skeptics and Opponents” – very timely topic for those of you who check your phone. There are big developments in Europe this morning. And we have an absolutely fantastic and attractive panel. And when I say “attractive,” I mean beautiful, not intelligent, that too, but the attractive is just as important.