Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the denial of amicus curiae status to CIEL and the Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Puerto Chale in the ICSID case UNCT/20/1, which concerns the Don Diego deep-sea mining project in Mexico. The author argues that the tribunal's majority decision ignored significant public interests, including environmental risks to the Gulf of Ulloa and the human rights of local fishers. By relying on discretionary power rather than an obligation to recognize public interest, the report contends that the tribunal undermined the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and failed to integrate international environmental and human rights law into the proceedings.

The document analyzes the denial of third-party participation in the Odyssey v. Mexico case, arguing that the tribunal's discretionary power to exclude affected communities undermines the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and ignores critical environmental and human rights considerations.

The document is an amicus curiae application and submission in the case of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. United Mexican States. The applicants argue that the Don Diego Project, which involves dredging 91 thousand hectares of the Gulf of Ulloa seabed to extract phosphate rock, would cause irreversible ecological damage and violate human rights. They contend that the Mexican State's decision to deny the environmental permit is supported by the precautionary principle and obligations under UNCLOS, the Rio Declaration, and various human rights treaties, including the ICESCR and the American Convention on Human Rights.