![Investment Dispute Prevention and Management Agencies: Toward a more informed policy discussion cover showing business meeting](/sites/default/files/styles/featured_box_portrait_mobile/public/2022-01/investment-dispute-prevention-management-agencies-policy-discussion.jpg?h=81630ad8&itok=sJrum545)
Investment Dispute Prevention and Management Agencies
Toward a more informed policy discussion
The establishment of an agency to prevent and manage investment disputes is often perceived as a way for countries to attract investment while managing the risks associated with disputes—but little is known about the design, operation, or effectiveness of such agencies. This report starts to fill that gap so policy-makers can make more informed decisions.
-
While investment DPMAs are often promoted as a solution to investment disputes, few states have established such agencies, and there is considerable variation in their design and operation.
-
There are some major risks associated with DPMAs that are not reflected in claims they can solve current challenges associated with investment disputes.
-
Governments should consider their investment goals, the different options for achieving them, and the risks involved before deciding whether to establish a dispute prevention and management agency.
Foreign investment can provide much-needed financial resources for developing countries, but the risk of costly claims under the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system can counteract these benefits. Investment dispute prevention and management agencies (DPMAs) are therefore frequently touted as a potential solution to the ISDS challenge, but how much do we know about them?
Only a relatively small number of states have established such agencies and there is considerable variation in their design and operation. This report reviews and analyzes how they operate and what effects they have had. It seeks to contribute to a more informed and evidence-based policy discussion.
The report starts by situating DPMAs in the context of wider discussions about investment governance, pulling apart some of the assumptions regarding the inevitability of ISDS risks and the underlying drivers of investment disputes. It then reviews and compares existing DPMAs in seven different states, drawing attention to the risks and benefits associated with them and how they operate in relation to other systems of investment governance.
You might also be interested in
New Agreement Marks First Step in Addressing Energy Charter Treaty Legacy
This is an important move to prevent legacy arbitration claims under the treaty, but more remains to be done.
A Balancing Act
With Nigeria's growing population in need of wide-ranging solutions to the multidimensional poverty it faces, a new IISD report outlines how the LNG dash could ultimately leave the economy more vulnerable to external shocks and without a solid domestic foundation.
National legal frameworks, not investment treaties, will best stimulate a sustainable economy
Countries should rely on domestic laws and wider regional policy frameworks to attract foreign investment for sustainable economic activities, concludes a report by Canadian think-tank the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Carbon Offset Deals and the Risks of “Green Grabbing”
Governments must ensure land-based investments for carbon removal respect the access and tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.