7,704 research outputs found

    Getting the Most Out of Extractive Industries Transparency: How a More Explicit Treatment of Political Considerations Could Strengthen the Impact of Transparency Efforts

    Get PDF
    Work on transparency in the extractive industries (EI) has achieved important successes over the last two decades. For example, significant commitments to disclosure have been secured, the volume of publicly available information about critical activities has increased considerably, and norms around certain information being in the public domain have been established. There is also a growing library of use cases for this information. Nonetheless, important work remains to be done to translate these efforts into impact. Political context is crucial to determining the fate of transparency efforts. Therefore, grappling with political context more effectively will also be key to unlocking more of the potential impact of these efforts. Our intention with this project is to provide a foundation for both understanding and addressing the politics of extractive industry transparency in practice, starting with this discussion paper (the main elements of which are summarized in the PLUS Politics brief). The time is ripe for a focus on political contexts for two reasons: First, work on transparency has matured and there is an opportunity to reflect on its track record to date, and Second, the added pressures on government, industry, civil society, and funders to adjust their priorities in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic raise the question: can EI transparency processes retain attention and resourcing at a moment when they are arguably more necessary than ever, but competing with other demands? Focusing on political dynamics will be essential to make sure they do. Our research provides insights and recommendations for thinking and working politically across the transparency lifecycle

    Transparency in Land-Based Investment: Key Questions and Next Steps

    Get PDF
    Large-scale investments in agriculture and forestry are often shrouded in secrecy. In many cases, they are negotiated without the involvement of affected communities, approved through opaque decision-making procedures, and governed by legal agreements that are difficult both to access and to understand. This systemic lack of transparency impedes accountability and exacerbates ongoing disagreements about the real costs and benefits for investors, host countries, and their citizens. Jointly authored by CCSI and the Open Contracting Partnership, this briefing note examines why contract disclosure and a contracting process that is open, accessible, and inclusive are important; what such transparency entails; and how various stakeholders can work towards achieving it

    Public Consultation on a Multilateral Reform of Investment Dispute Settlement

    Get PDF
    In March 2017 CCSI made a submission to the European Commission (EC) in response to its “Public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute settlement.” CCSI’s submission consisted of a response to the form questionnaire created by the EC and a supplementary “Position Paper” to explain in greater depth CCSI’s views on the EC’s proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). In its Position Paper, CCSI emphasizes the importance of international investment and international law to sustainable development objectives. The submission stresses, however, that the EC’s proposed MIC does not address, and therefore does not remedy, the most problematic aspects of the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system and thus represents a missed opportunity for true reform. CCSI analyzes the frequently cited objectives of ISDS, on which the MIC is based, and explaines the reasons for which these are not the correct objectives from a sustainable development perspective. CCSI’s position is that the MIC will serve to further entrench and expand a broken dispute resolution system. CCSI concludes with the importance of developing an inclusive investment dispute resolution system and notes that CCSI and other partners are engaged in discussions of what this kind of reform should look like

    Outcome Report of Roundtable on Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) of Large-Scale Foreign Investments

    Get PDF
    CCSI, the Sciences Po Law School Clinic, and the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute recently published an outcome document of a one-day roundtable focused on the opportunities and challenges presented by human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) of large-scale foreign investments. The roundtable, which was held in April 2014 at Columbia University, provided an opportunity for collaborative reflection on the development of HRIAs, as well as on ways to enhance HRIAs as a framework and tool for both human rights advocacy and human rights risk management in respect of foreign investments. By sharing the outcomes of the roundtable, this document aims to support HRIA practitioners, company officials, civil society representatives, and other stakeholders focused on human rights and foreign investment in further reflection on the objectives and methods of HRIAs. The roundtable examined the various practices comprising HRIAs, and the discussion underscored that many of the challenges associated with carrying out an HRIA are common to multiple stakeholders, albeit borne out in different ways. This outcome document describes some of the primary ways in which HRIAs are undertaken and outlines the salient issues and key challenges that practitioners have identified

    Comment on US Trade and Investment Agreements Submitted to USTR

    Get PDF
    Comments to USTR Re: Review of US Trade and Investment Agreements (July 17, 2017): CCSI, in response to the United States Trade Representative’s request for public comment to inform its performance review of US trade and investment agreements, submitted Comments that focused on the impact that investment protection provisions, enforceable through investor-state dispute settlement, have on rights-compliant, inclusive sustainable development within the United States and abroad

    CCSI Submission to the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment: Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanisms and the Right To a Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment

    Get PDF
    CCSI Submission to the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, submitted in June 2023

    230+ Law and Economics Professors Urge President to Remove ISDS from NAFTA

    Get PDF
    CCSI helped launch a letter signed by over 230 law and economics professors urging President Trump to remove ISDS provisions from NAFTA. As the letter notes, the ISDS mechanism “undermines the important roles of our domestic and democratic institutions, threatens domestic sovereignty, and weakens the rule of law.” The letter builds upon the center’s past work, including a similar letter published last year calling on Congress to reject the Trans Pacific Partnership for its inclusion of ISDS, and broader analyses of both the threat that ISDS poses to domestic US law and of the ISDS provisions that were included in the TPP

    Submission Regarding Amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules

    Get PDF
    In March 2017, CCSI submitted comments to the ICSID Secretariat regarding proposed revisions to ICSID’s arbitration rules. CCSI’s submission provided illustrative suggestions for amendments regarding the following issues: recognizing and safeguarding of the rights and interests of non-parties; improving transparency of the dispute resolution process; promoting transparency of ownership over investments; preventing actual and apparent conflicts of interest; addressing concerns raised by third-party funding; ensuring legitimacy of settlement agreements; and ensuring legitimacy of the rule revision process itself

    220+ Law and Economics Professors Sign Letter Opposing ISDS in the TPP

    Get PDF
    CCSI helped launch a letter joined by over 220 law and economics professors calling on Congress to oppose the final Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because that treaty includes the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. As the letter notes, the ISDS mechanism “threatens to dilute constitutional protections, weaken the judicial branch and outsource our domestic legal system to a system of private arbitration that is isolated from essential checks and balances.” Despite the Obama administration’s claims to have addressed growing concerns about the ISDS system, the final TPP would instead vastly expand the ISDS threat to the rule of law and U.S. democratic institutions. This letter served as the model for a similar letter published in October 2017 urging President Trump to remove ISDS provisions from NAFTA
    • …
    corecore