Amicus Curiae post-hearing submission to the NAFTA Chapter 11 Tribunal: Methanex Corp. v. the United States of America
IISD's post-hearing submission in the NAFTA Chapter 11 case Methanex v. the USA argues that the US defence of the California MTBE ban as a public health measure does not go far enough.
IISD's post-hearing submission in the NAFTA Chapter 11 case Methanex v. the USA argues that the US defence of the California MTBE ban as a public health measure does not go far enough.
The ban is also an environmental measure. On both counts it should not be seen as an expropriation.
You might also be interested in
Amicus Curiae submissions to the NAFTA Chapter 11 Tribunal: Methanex Corp. v. the United States of America
IISD's submission to the NAFTA Chapter Methanex panel marks the first ever accepted submission to a NAFTA investment tribunal of a "friend of the court."
In the Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules between Methanex Corporation, (Claimant/Investor) and United States of America, (Respondent/Party); Petition to the Arbitral Tribunal
The purpose of this Petition is to request permission to submit an Amicus Curiae brief to the Tribunal on critical legal issues of public concern in the arbitration between Methanex Corporation and the United States of America.
Review of the Decision on Jurisdiction of the Methanex Tribunal, August 7, 2002
On August 7, 2002, the Tribunal in the NAFTA Chapter 11 case Methanex vs. the United States of America delivered an interim ruling. This brief non-technical summary discusses the ruling and its significance for sustainable development.
The Hidden Clauses That Can Hinder Tax and Investment Policy Reform
Stabilization clauses should no longer automatically be included in contracts between states and investors. If they are, they should, at a minimum, build on the latest international standards on stabilization to avoid being a barrier to sustainable development.