Search results

More than a decade before becoming President of the United States, Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer, observed that, among the branches of property law, the distribution of mining rights most elegantly reflects the vicissitudes of social and political relations. According to Hoover, mining rights were a "never-ending contention," as old as economic and civil conflict, among four principle classes – overlord, state, landowner, and miner. "Somebody," he concluded, "has to keep peace and settle disputes." Today, with the prices of major natural-resource commodities – including oil, coal, copper, gold, and iron ore – doubling, tripling, or rising even faster, the extractive industries are rapidly expanding. Profitable investments in the sector could lift millions of people out of poverty in the developing world.

In June 2011, CCSI released a consultative draft report on Resource-Based Sustainable Development in the Lower Zambezi Basin, the result of a year-long inquiry into how the vast resource deposits in Tete province, combined with other major investments along the Nacala and Beira corridors, can be the basis for sustainable, equitable and inclusive growth in the Lower Zambezi Basin. The report recommends a framework of actions by Mozambique and its public and private partners to ensure that Mozambique reaps a major boost to economic development from its vast resource endowments, while also respecting the profitability of private-sector investments in these important projects. In short, the report aims for a "win-win" arrangement in which all stakeholders, public and private, derive benefits from the mining sector in Tete Province. The consultative draft was presented in Mozambique in June 2011, to serve as the basis for discussion, comment, and engagement with the range of stakeholders- government, private sector, development partners, regional banks, and civil society. Comments are welcome on the report. CCSI looks forward to working with stakeholders in the region on implementation.

In recent years, the treaties and strategies promoting global investment have changed dramatically. The widespread liberalization of economic policy has effectively spurred an increase in foreign direct investment (FDI). By encouraging foreign investors to enter international markets, many countries are witnessing exponential growth within their economies and local industries. The surge of FDI not only brings capital for emerging or growing industries, but it is also capable of boosting the country's economy by creating greater access to financing, more job opportunities, and potential knowledge and technology spillovers. The basic purpose of concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and double taxation treaties (DTTs) is to signal to investors that investments will be legally protected under international law in case of political turmoil and to mitigate the possibility of double taxation of foreign entities. But the actual effect of BITs and DTTs on the flows of foreign direct investment is debatable. The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties, and Investment Flows is a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these treaties, and presents the most recent literature on BITs and DTTs and their impact on foreign investments. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_books/1005/thumbnail.jpg

In January 2015, CCSI sent a memo to President Obama to provide input on the U.S. National Action Plan on responsible business conduct. The memo applauded the U.S. Government's decision to develop a National Action Plan consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, noting that responsible and rights-respecting outward investment can support sustainable development in host countries, and that the U.S. Government has an important role to play in promoting responsible business operations. The memo urged the government to explore in particular how the National Action Plan can address U.S. business conduct related to extractive industries investments and large-scale agricultural investments abroad.

In September 2013, CCSI sent a memo to President Obama and his Administration in response to the first public reports submitted by U.S. companies in compliance with the Burma Responsible Investment Reporting Requirements. The memo applauded the U.S. Government's efforts to encourage responsible investment in Burma, noting that robust due diligence is essential to ensuring that international investments contribute to sustainable development. Yet the memo also urged the Obama Administration to take steps to strengthen future reporting. In particular, CCSI urged the Administration to issue clarifying guidance that any U.S. investor submitting a report should (1) provide information on due diligence policies and procedures related to land rights, and (2) provide thorough information in response to each reporting question, regardless of whether its investments are "passive."

With the rise of treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement ("ISDS") which has taken place over the last two decades, a number of governments have adopted varying approaches to avoid those arbitration cases. Countries including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Mexico, Mongolia, and Peru have pursued such initiatives, often with the support of intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations Convention on Trade and Development ("UNCTAD") and the World Bank. In the context of discussions on ISDS reform taking place at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL"), some states have identified development and implementation of such ISDS-avoidance strategies and tools as initiatives they would like to pursue. There remains, however, relatively little dialogue and research exploring the comparative institutional design, functional workings, and costs and benefits of different approaches, and identifying, articulating, and disseminating lessons learned from experiences to date. This article draws from a broader research project exploring the effectiveness of dispute prevention approaches (and perceptions thereof) at resolving underlying conflicts between investors and states, and at their implications for other stakeholders. Understanding how dispute prevention approaches can and do operate and whether and how they can provide meaningful and lasting solutions to the broader conflicts underlying investor-state disputes can critically inform the assessment of existing approaches and the design of new ones.