1 / 10

Enhancing Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL’s Work

Enhancing Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL’s Work. Presentation o n the margins of the 47th session of UNCITRAL: UNCITRAL standards for transparency, accountability and good governance July 17, 2014. Transparency and the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules.

portia
Download Presentation

Enhancing Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL’s Work

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Enhancing Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL’s Work Presentation on the margins of the 47th session of UNCITRAL: UNCITRAL standards for transparency, accountability and good governance July 17, 2014

  2. Transparency and the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules • The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules were first developed in 1976 • Specifically drafted for use in commercial arbitration (private parties) • The former Arbitration Rules specified: • Presumption in favour of in camera hearings • Disclosure of awards only with consent of both parties

  3. The Need for Transparency • ISDS involves public policy and the public interest • Transparency serves the interests of the citizens of disputing state: • When there are allegations of government misconduct, the public has the right to know whether these allegations can be substantiated • Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the defence and for any awards issued against States

  4. Perception of ‘Closed Doors’ in ISDS • Media and academic criticism of ISDS and the negative public perception • Common critiques of ISDS: • crucial proceedings held behind “closed doors” • unnecessary confidentiality • shrinking policy space

  5. Global Trend Toward Transparency • Increased public access to information in government hands • Revision of the UNCITRAL Rules was required to keep abreast of other arbitration rules (ICSID) • Advances in State practice in the context of transparency in ISDS in FTAs and bilateral investment treaties

  6. UNCITRAL Adopts Transparency Rules • Negotiations within the UNCITRAL Working Group began in 2010 • On 11 July 2013, UNCITRAL adopted the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (the "Transparency Rules") • The Transparency Rules came into effect 1 April 2014

  7. Stakeholder Input • The Working Group was composed of all State members of UNCITRAL • Observers from various States also participated • Sessions were also attended by various intergovernmental organisations • International NGOs also in attendance

  8. Balance Attained • The 2013 UNCITRAL Rules address the transparency gaps in the previous Rules and criticism of the ISDS regime • Balance is maintained between increased transparency, efficiency, and the protection of confidential information

  9. Influence • The 2013 UNCITRAL Rules may influence other bodies and States to re-commit or commit further to increased transparency • UNCITRAL has assumed a leadership role in this important area of international dispute settlement going forward

  10. Enhancing Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL’s Work Presentation on the margins of the 47th session of UNCITRAL: UNCITRAL standards for transparency, accountability and good governance July 17, 2014

More Related