Change News: Ecuador Terminates Investment Treaties

Elke Schenk globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

https://www.tni.org/en/article/why-did-ecuador-terminate-all-its-bilateral-investment-treaties

Why did Ecuador terminate all its Bilateral investment treaties?

25 May 2017

On 16 May, Ecuador became the fifth country to terminate all its Bilateral investment treaties (BIT). Why did it make this decision? TNI researcher Cecilia Olivet, and president of the Ecuadorian Citizens Commission that audited the country’s investment protection treaties, shares her insider perspective.

Authors Cecilia Olivet

How did the Ecuador investment treaties audit commission (CAITISA) come about?

On 5 October 2012, an investment arbitration tribunal ordered the government of Ecuador to pay 2.3 billion USD to US oil company Occidental. It was the largest amount a State had been ordered to pay by an investor-State tribunal up to that point. For Ecuador, that sum represented 59% of the country’s 2012 annual budget for education and 135% of the country’s annual healthcare budget.

The decision taken by three private lawyers under the auspices of the World’s Bank arbitration centre shocked the world and the Ecuadorian government. The government’s move that prompted Occidental’s litigation had hardly been extreme. Ecuador terminated the oil concession with Occidental when it found out that the company sold 40 percent of its production rights to another investor without government approval. The contract signed by Occidental with the government in 1999 explicitly stated that sale of Occidental’s production rights without government pre-approval would terminate the contract. The arbitrators in the case justified their decision, calling Ecuador’s cancelation of the contract a disproportionate response.

On 6 May 2013, 7 months later, President Correa created the investment treaties audit commission (CAITISA). Its purpose was to audit the whole Ecuadorian investment regime in a comprehensive way. The Commission was to determine the legality and legitimacy of Ecuador’s Bilateral Investment Protection Treaties (BITs) and the investment cases filed against the country. The Commission was also expected to assess whether the BITs have helped to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) to Ecuador and/or contributed to the quality of investment in terms of national development. Finally, the Commission would propose legal and policy alternatives to BITs and the international arbitration system.

[…] By that time investors had sued the government based on international investment treaties 24 times. So, the government saw the need to assess the costs vis-a-vis the benefits of the 26 international treaties in force which they inherited when President Correa took office.

How did you get involved?

A few months before the Commission was created, I co-authored a report focusing on the role of arbitrators and law firms as drivers of an investment arbitration boom. This report had exposed some key flaws of the investment arbitration system. Government officials in Ecuador who read the report asked me to join the Commission.

What was unique about the Commission?

This Commission sets an incredible precedent. It contributed towards the ongoing international assessment of the necessity for and impact of the international investment regime on the development of countries in the Global South. It also contributed to a public debate about the legitimacy and “benefits” of the current investment protection framework.

The Commission is unique in two ways. First, it is the first time a government decided to organise a review of its investment protection system in the form of an auditing process carried out by a Citizens Auditing Commission. It was inspired by the experience of the Debt Auditing Commission. CAITISA was formed by a mix of investment lawyers, civil society representatives and government officials. It included a majority (8 out of 12) of people from outside the government, most of whom are not from Ecuador. The inclusion of non-governmental experts and civil society representatives among those carrying out the review has ensured a higher level of transparency and has allowed for broader public participation. Besides the Commissioners, the auditing task was supported by a large group of other experts (including several members of a group of social activists in Latin America focusing on investment protection), who helped to develop the terms of reference and also assisted with the audit itself.

[…] CAITISA, on the other hand, was given a mandate to audit not only the the Bilateral Investment Treaties of Ecuador (including the conditions under which these treaties were signed, its clauses and the compatibility of BITs with national and international law), but also the Investment Arbitration System and cases against Ecuador […].

What were its main findings?

[…] In particular, the Commission found that the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITS) signed by Ecuador failed to deliver promised foreign direct investment. Also, Ecuador’s BITs contradict and undermine the development objectives laid out in the country’s constitution and its National Plan for Living Well (Buen Vivir). It was also established that the companies that sued the government at international investment tribunals left behind enormous social and environmental liabilities/debt.

Investors have disproportionately benefited when suing Ecuador using bilateral investment treaties. In particular the financial costs for Ecuador have been immense. The total amount disbursed so far by the state has been $1.498 billion dollars, equivalent to 62% of health spending. The government has also spent 156 million USD in payments to international law firms for its defence.

The Commission also established that officials who signed Ecuadorian BITs did not try to negotiate terms that would preserve the state’s regulatory capacity. None of the BITs signed by Ecuador underwent a negotiation process. Also, legislators who ratified these treaties did not consider the risk for the country. Congress ratified most treaties without a legislative debate.

Finally, the Commission found that majority of the arbitrators nominated to decide cases against Ecuador cannot be considered fully impartial.

[For more details of the findings, see factsheet at the end]

What was the most shocking or surprising thing for you in terms of Ecuador’s experience with ISDS/BITs?

Once the audit was complete, and all the findings were put together, it was shocking to see how government officials have signed on to these powerful instruments without any consideration of risks. It was shocking how investors could launch lawsuit after lawsuit attacking legitimate government measures. It was shocking to see how arbitration tribunals sided with investors making investor-friendly interpretation of the clauses in this biased treaties. It was shocking to see a rigged system in action.

Why do you think so many countries like Ecuador signed BITs?

[…] In an orchestrated effort, organisations like the WTO, UNCTAD, OECD, the World Bank and others, encouraged governments from the Global South to sign as many investment treaties as possible.

Lauge Poulsen, in his thesis “Sacrificing sovereignty by chance”, probably explained it better than anyone: “By overestimating the benefits of BITs and ignoring the risks, developing country governments often saw the treaties as merely ‘tokens of goodwill’. Many thereby sacrificed their sovereignty more by chance than by design, and it was typically not until they were hit by their first claim, that officials realised that the treaties were enforceable in both principle and fact.”

What were the main recommendations of CAITISA?

The Commission gave detailed recommendations that covered 11 pages. But, the key one was the termination of all bilateral investment treaties.

We also recommended to exclude the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism from any future treaty, and provide legal security to investors in national courts.

The Commission also advised the government to only sign new investment treaties based on an alternative investment model. This new model would highly restrict the rights of investors, it would protects the rights of the government to regulate and to direct investment by applying performance requirements and, it would impose binding obligations for the investor to secure they respect national and international human, social and environmental rights.

[For more details of the recommendations, see factsheet at the end]

How did the Ecuadorian government respond to your recommendations?

The recommendations of the Commission were non-binding. However, on 17 May (9 days after CAITISA publicly presented the final report), the government announced that it had proceed to terminate the remaining 16 BITs that were still in force.

The government also announced that is planning to renegotiate investment treaties with several countries under a different model.

[…]

Presseschau vom 15.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Quellen: Itar-Tass, Interfax, Ria Novosti, sputniknews, rusvesna.su, voicesevas.ru, hinzu kommen Informationen der Seiten dnr-online, lnr-portal, Novorossia, dnr-news, novorosinform u.a. sowie die offiziellen Seiten der Regierungen der Volksrepubliken dan-news, lug-info. Wir beziehen manchmal auch ukrainische Medien, z.B. BigMir, UNIAN, Ukrinform, KorrespondenT und die Online-Zeitung Timer aus Odessa ein. Zur besseren Unterscheidung der Herkunft der Meldungen sind Nachrichtenquellen aus […]

über Presseschau vom 15.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Presseschau vom 14.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Quellen: Itar-Tass, Interfax, Ria Novosti, sputniknews, rusvesna.su, voicesevas.ru, hinzu kommen Informationen der Seiten dnr-online, lnr-portal, Novorossia, dnr-news, novorosinform u.a. sowie die offiziellen Seiten der Regierungen der Volksrepubliken dan-news, lug-info. Wir beziehen manchmal auch ukrainische Medien, z.B. BigMir, UNIAN, Ukrinform, KorrespondenT und die Online-Zeitung Timer aus Odessa ein. Zur besseren Unterscheidung der Herkunft der Meldungen sind Nachrichtenquellen aus […]

über Presseschau vom 14.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Presseschau vom 13.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Quellen: Itar-Tass, Interfax, Ria Novosti, sputniknews, rusvesna.su, voicesevas.ru, hinzu kommen Informationen der Seiten dnr-online, lnr-portal, Novorossia, dnr-news, novorosinform u.a. sowie die offiziellen Seiten der Regierungen der Volksrepubliken dan-news, lug-info. Wir beziehen manchmal auch ukrainische Medien, z.B. BigMir, UNIAN, Ukrinform, KorrespondenT und die Online-Zeitung Timer aus Odessa ein. Zur besseren Unterscheidung der Herkunft der Meldungen sind Nachrichtenquellen aus […]

über Presseschau vom 13.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Presseschau vom 12.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Quellen: Itar-Tass, Interfax, Ria Novosti, sputniknews, rusvesna.su, voicesevas.ru, hinzu kommen Informationen der Seiten dnr-online, lnr-portal, Novorossia, dnr-news, novorosinform u.a. sowie die offiziellen Seiten der Regierungen der Volksrepubliken dan-news, lug-info. Wir beziehen manchmal auch ukrainische Medien, z.B. BigMir, UNIAN, Ukrinform, KorrespondenT und die Online-Zeitung Timer aus Odessa ein. Zur besseren Unterscheidung der Herkunft der Meldungen sind Nachrichtenquellen aus […]

über Presseschau vom 12.08.2017 — Alternative Presseschau

Atomkrieg ist machbar — Rationalgalerie Aktuell

14. August 2017

US-Präsident droht Nord-Korea atomar : Wie anders soll man Trumps Drohung mit „Feuer, Wut und Macht, wie die Welt es so noch nicht gesehen hat“ gegen Nordkorea begreifen als eben atomar? Und kaum jemand scheint für diese Aggression geeigneter als die nordkoreanische Erbmonarchie, die sich…

über Atomkrieg ist machbar — Rationalgalerie Aktuell

Avoiding Nuclear War: Why Kim Jong-Un’s Strategy Makes Sense

Federico PIERACCINI | 11.08.2017

Federico PIERACCINI: Looking at the recent North Korean testing of two intercontinental missiles, it may seem that Pyongyang wishes to increase tensions in the region. A more careful analysis, however, shows how the DPRK is implementing a strategy that will likely succeed in averting a disastrous war on the peninsula.

Quelle: Avoiding Nuclear War: Why Kim Jong-Un’s Strategy Makes Sense

Full text attached (pdf): Federico PIERACCINI Avoiding Nuclear War 20170811