This article provides historical context for the shift in the transnational legal order that governs mining in Colombia and has provoked an increasing number of socio-political conflicts, leading to ISDS claims.
The recently rendered decision in Eco Oro v. Colombia highlights many of the problems with policy exceptionalism. Most importantly, it suggests that states cannot, by larding their investment treaties with exceptions and carve-outs, simply avoid reckoning with the fundamental challenges facing the investment treaty system.
Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41
The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, and the president of Colombia, Iván Duque Márquez, signed a new BIT on September 16, 2021. Both countries sought to modernize the previous treaty, which had come into force in 2005.
According to the Colombian Constitution, the Constitutional Court must assess the constitutionality of all international treaties after signature and prior to ratification. In two recent landmark decisions, the court assessed the constitutionality of the BIT signed with France in 2014 and of the FTA signed with Israel in 2013. This article examines these decisions and identifies some areas of concern.
Investment treaties and arbitration are argued, by proponents of the regime, to contribute to “good governance” in host states. This article, based on an empirical study of mining investments in the Colombian páramo, argues that the conception of good governance promoted by investment arbitration is incomplete and does not adequately consider the role of courts in providing checks and balances.
Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/6
Judgment C-252 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia,[1] on the constitutionality of the Colombia–France BIT,[2] has aroused interest[3] for being the response of the constitutional judge to the way in which foreign investment protection clauses are incorporated into domestic law.
Political positions and laws on foreign investment have been polarized into two opposing perspectives. On the one hand, there is the assumption that foreign direct investment (FDI) is essential for the economies of peripheral countries to take a leap toward development, prompting FDI promotion and even generating competition among countries to attract more investment.
On the heels of our 11th Annual Forum of Developing Country Investment Negotiators, we interviewed Luis Guillermo Vélez, Director-General of Colombia’s National Agency for the Legal Defense of the State (ANDJE), to capture his experiences on investment negotiations and disputes, his expectations for investment reform processes and views on the value of the Forum.