Investment Arbitration Training BrochureTreaty-based investor-state arbitrations have been on the rise, affecting a growing number of countries each year.  Due to several features of investment arbitration, it can be exceedingly difficult for states to understand the strengths and weaknesses of claims or defenses, develop and implement their own litigation strategies, or internalize lessons from past decisions in order to avoid future disputes. Moreover, even when states win cases, defending the disputes can be costly, drawing officials’ attention away from important matters, generating millions of dollars in litigation expenses, and causing governments reputational harm.

This course addresses those challenges. Through an intensive week-long course, government officials involved in managing investment treaty disputes or negotiating investment treaties will increase their knowledge of crucial procedural and substantive aspects of investment law.  Sessions will be taught by leading academics and practitioners and will be tailored to uniquely address issues relevant to governments.

For more information about the program, please download the 2015 Executive Training Brochure here and application here




We’ve recently released several new papers related to existing and possible future investment treaties with investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS):

On existing treaties, CCSI’s Lise Johnson wrote Ripe for Refinement: The State’s Role in Interpretation of FET, MFN and Shareholder Rights, a working paper published by the Global Economic Governance Programme at University of Oxford. Building on a Policy Paper CCSI published in April 2014 on State Control Over Treaty Interpretation, this recent paper identifies three specific issues in investment treaty law – fair and equitable treatment (FET), most favored nation (MFN), and shareholder rights — that are particularly ripe for proactive efforts by states to address as “masters of their treaties.” It also sets out a series of questions that aim to facilitate inter-state efforts to identify consensus on these controversial treaty provisions.

On potential future treaties
, CCSI’s Lise Johnson and Lisa Sachs, together with Earth Institute Director Jeffrey D. Sachs wrote a Policy Paper on the implications of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) for domestic law and policy, focusing on effects within the United States. The paper concludes that the risks ISDS poses for domestic law are significant and unjustified, and that there are preferable policy alternatives for protecting the rights of investors operating overseas.

The Policy Paper draws from various CCSI research and publications, e.g., on

This Policy Paper was presented at a Congressional briefing in mid-May, and was summarized in a number of op-eds:
April 22: “Eyes Wide Shut on ISDS,” The Hill’s Congress Blog
May 12: “Not so Fast,” U.S. News and World Report
May 19: “Why Fast Track is a Dangerous Gift to Corporate Lobbies,” Huffington Post.