Search Climate Insights Directory

This briefing by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) analyzes the implications of a July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change for international investment law. It argues that the ICJ's recognition of climate action as a binding legal obligation undermines investor claims based on 'legitimate expectations' for fossil fuel activities and provides states with stronger legal defenses against Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) submitted a statement to the OECD in September 2025 proposing a 'problem-driven' approach to investment treaty design. The document argues that investment treaties should evolve from static instruments of investor protection into active tools that support states' binding climate obligations, as highlighted by a July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion. IISD suggests a three-step framework: assessing the realistic capabilities and limitations of treaties, identifying specific climate-related policy problems (such as energy sector bottlenecks and fossil fuel subsidy reform), and determining specific avenues for positive contribution, including transparency requirements and mandatory responsible business conduct for investors.

This brochure describes the Sustainable Investment Advisory Services provided by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to developing countries. The services, which are provided free of charge, include training workshops, seminars, and technical advice designed to help governments ensure that foreign investments contribute to equitable and sustainable development.

This briefing consists of final submissions by Howard Mann, Senior International Law Advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade. It provides a legal critique of the Investment Chapter of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), arguing that the draft text significantly expands corporate rights and restricts the ability of Canadian federal and provincial governments to regulate in areas such as health and the environment.

This report reviews the 2002 Belgian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), arguing that it follows a traditional European model that provides extensive protections for foreign investors while imposing broad obligations on host states. The authors contend that the model lacks necessary refinements to preserve policy space for sustainable development, environmental protection, and labour rights, and fails to address governance issues in investor-state dispute settlement.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms act as a major legal and financial barrier to climate action. It contends that ISDS allows fossil fuel investors to sue governments for implementing climate regulations, creating a "chilling effect" that deters states from phasing out fossil fuels and aligning financial flows with the Paris Agreement.

This report by Friends of the Earth International examines how international trade and investment agreements prioritize agro-industrial profits over food sovereignty and environmental health. It argues that these frameworks restrict the ability of states to protect their populations and ecosystems, while advocating for a shift in investment toward small-scale agroecology to combat hunger and climate change.

This background paper by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) examines the international arbitration case of Vattenfall v. Germany. It analyzes how the Swedish energy utility Vattenfall used the Energy Charter Treaty to challenge German environmental restrictions on a coal-fired power plant, highlighting the tension between international investment protections and a state's ability to regulate for the environment.