EU PROPOSAL FOR A MULTILATERAL REFORM OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) opposes the European Commission's proposal to establish a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), arguing that the plan focuses narrowly on institutional adjustments while failing to address the substantive imbalances of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. CIEL contends that the MIC would entrench a regime that prioritizes corporate rights over the sovereign right of states to regulate for the public interest, human rights, and the environment.

• CIEL argues that the European Commission's proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) is fundamentally flawed because it focuses only on institutional aspects of dispute resolution and ignores the need to reform substantive treaty provisions. The proposal does not address the broad rights granted to investors or the lack of enforceable obligations regarding human rights, labor, and environmental laws.
• The proposed MIC is criticized for reinforcing a structural bias in favor of international investors. This bias is maintained by the lack of requirements for investors to exhaust domestic remedies before bringing claims and the exclusion of other stakeholders—such as civil society, communities, and trade unions—from participating in proceedings.
• CIEL warns that the MIC could lead to the 'consistency of bad law,' where a permanent court becomes over-enthusiastic about vindicating investor rights. This would further formalize special rights for foreign corporations and enhance the authority of awards based on agreements that prioritize investment protection over a state's right to regulate.
• The document suggests that the European Commission should instead pursue a multilateral process focused on sustainable development and concrete reform. Recommended alternatives include refusing jurisdiction over investors who violate domestic or international laws, limiting claims to uncompensated direct expropriation of real property, and requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
• CIEL highlights existing alternatives to the ISDS system, noting that some countries have terminated bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or developed models that exclude ISDS. For example, Brazil's Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA) model replaces investor-state claims with state-state consultations and negotiations.
• The document concludes that the EU should prioritize the creation of binding public international law to protect human rights and the environment, such as a UN treaty for business enterprises, rather than strengthening a system that allows corporations to challenge government public interest actions.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2017). EU PROPOSAL FOR A MULTILATERAL REFORM OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CIEL_Position_Paper_on_the_EU_proposal_for_MIC_march_15.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. EU PROPOSAL FOR A MULTILATERAL REFORM OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 2017. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CIEL_Position_Paper_on_the_EU_proposal_for_MIC_march_15.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=EU PROPOSAL FOR A MULTILATERAL REFORM OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION |date=15 March 2017 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CIEL_Position_Paper_on_the_EU_proposal_for_MIC_march_15.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2017proposal, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{EU PROPOSAL FOR A MULTILATERAL REFORM OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2017}, month = mar, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CIEL_Position_Paper_on_the_EU_proposal_for_MIC_march_15.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }