코로나19와 ISDS에 대해 대한민국 정부에 보내는 서한

일자: 2020년 6월 26일(금요일)

수신: 문재인 대통령

참조: 강경화 외교부 장관, 추미애 법무부 장관, 성윤모 산업통상자원부 장관, 유명희 통상교섭본부장

발신: 건강권 실현을 위한 보건의료단체연합회, 건강사회를 위한 약사회, 건강사회를 위한 치과의사회, 공공연구노조, 민주사회를 위한 변호사모임 국제통상위원회, 시민건강연구소, 연구공동체 건강과대안, 인도주의실천의사협의회, 전국금속노동조합, 주권자전국회의, 지식연구소 공방, 참여연대, 한국모유수유넷 (13개 시민사회단체)

제목: 코로나19와 ISDS에 대한 시민사회 단체들의 공개서한

 

전 세계 90개 이상의 나라에서 활동하는 시민사회단체와 국제적으로 활동하는 시민사회단체 630개 단체들이 코로나19와 투자자-국가 분쟁해결(ISDS)에 대한 공개서한을 각국 정부에 보내고 있습니다. 발신인 단체들은 이 서한에 연명하였거나, 서한에는 연명하지 않았더라도 서한의 주장과 취지에 동의하는 단체들입니다. 

코로나19 위기 국면에서 전 세계 수많은 단체들이 ISDS에 관한 각국 정부의 긴급한 조치를 촉구하는 이유는 위기를 극복하기 위한 정부의 조치가 ISDS 분쟁에 휘말릴 수 있다는 우려 때문입니다. 이러한 우려는 당장 현실이 될 가능성이 매우 높습니다.

해외 여러 로펌들이 코로나19를 극복하기 위한 여러 정부들의 조치에 대해 ISDS를 제기해 배상을 받는 돈벌이가 가능하다고 투자자들에게 자문을 해 주고 있습니다. 코로나19로 많은 사업이 어려움을 겪고 있지만 특이하게도 “제3자 자금지원(third party funding)” 사업은 호황을 누리고 있습니다.[1] “제3자 자금지원”은 ISDS 분쟁에서 이겨 국가로부터 받은 배상금을 투자자와 제3자가 나눠 갖는 사업모델로 우리나라를 상대로 한 ISDS 분쟁사건에도 연루되어 있다는 점은 우리 정부가 유엔 국제상거래위원회 (UNCITRAL)에 공식 문서[2]를 제출할 당시 인정한 바 있습니다. 또한 많은 정부가 코로나19 위기에 직면했던 2020년 3월 1일부터 5월 25일 사이에 발생한 ISDS 분쟁 사건이 12건에 달합니다. 이 사건들과 코로나19 관련성은 추가 분석이 필요하지만, 페루 정부는 코로나19 대응을 위한 조치에 대해 ISDS 위협을 실제로 받기도 하였습니다. 

2012년 론스타의 ISDS를 시작으로 우리나라를 상대로 제기된 ISDS 분쟁에서 청구된 배상액이 117억 달러에 달합니다. 불과 7년만에 약 14조원의 분쟁에 휘말린, 전 세계에서 유래를 찾기 힘들 정도의 폭발적인 증가세입니다. 코로나19 위기를 극복하기 위한 우리 정부의 조치마저 ISDS 분쟁에 휘말리게 할 수는 없습니다. 

이 서한의 발신인들은 문재인 대통령에게 공개서한에서 요구하는 6가지 조치를 빨리 취해 주실 것을 요청합니다. 그리고 통상관료들과 국내 로펌, 그리고 이른바 ‘중재산업계’의 유착 고리를 빨리 끊어내고, ISDS 출구 전략을 시민사회와 공동으로 마련하여 우리나라의 헌법과 공공가치를 무시하고 외국인 투자자에게 일방적인 특혜를 베푸는 ISDS의 굴레에서 벗어나는 결단을 내려 주시기 촉구합니다.

2020년 6월 26일

건강권 실현을 위한 보건의료단체연합회⋅건강사회를 위한 약사회⋅건강사회를 위한 치과의사회⋅공공연구노조⋅민주사회를 위한 변호사모임 국제통상위원회⋅시민건강연구소⋅연구공동체 건강과대안⋅인도주의실천의사협의회⋅전국금속노동조합⋅주권자전국회의⋅지식연구소 공방⋅참여연대⋅한국모유수유넷

*첨부

  1. 공개서한 국문 번역본
  2. 공개서한 영문 및 전 세계 연명 단체 명단 및 부속문서(Annex)  https://wp.me/P6NxJb-1tc

 <공개서한 국문 번역본>

 

우리는 오늘 귀하에게 세계 각국이 코로나19 대유행과 그에 따른 경제 위기에 대처하기 위해 취한 조치들로 인해 투자자-국가 분쟁 해결(ISDS) 사건에 직면하지 않도록 앞장서 줄 것을 촉구하기 위해 이 서한을 보냅니다. 전 세계 여러 정부들이 생명을 구하고, 대유행을 막고, 일자리를 지키고, 경제적 재난에 대처하고, 국민들의 기본적인 욕구가 충족되도록 하기 위한 조치를 취하고 있습니다. 이러한 조치들은 전례없이 강도높은 것들로 그 필요성에 대해서는 의문의 여지가 없습니다. 그러나 ISDS 제도는 적용 범위가 워낙 광범위하기 때문에, 정부의 이러한 필수적인 조치들도 외국인 투자자들로부터 수백만 달러의 배상 청구에 직면할 수 있습니다. 코로나19 관련 ISDS 배상 청구는 전례없는 건 수로 늘어날 수 있고, 그렇게 되면 충격적인 공중보건 위기와 경제 위기로 어려움을 겪고 있는 정부에게 막대한 재정적 부담을 지울 수 있습니다.

ISDS는 다양한 형태로 많은 무역 협정과 투자 협정에 조문화되어 있습니다. ISDS는 외국인 투자자에게(좀 더 정확하게는 “외국인 투자자에게만”) 국내 법원을 통해서 구할 수 있는 것보다 훨씬 더  많은 금액의 배상을 구하는 분쟁을 국가의 사법 체계를 벗어난 비밀 중재기관에 제기할 수 있도록 합니다. ISDS 제도로부터 막대한 이익을 얻고 있는 변호사들은 이미 ISDS 제도를 활용해 코로나19 위기 대응을 위해 각국 정부가 취한 조치들에 대해 막대한 배상을 받는 데에 관심이 있는 기업 고객들을 물색하고 있습니다. 로펌들과[3] 통상 전문가들,[4] 유엔 기구[5]와 인권 전문가들[6]은 이미 ISDS 분쟁의 급물살을 예고한 바 있습니다. 전문 법률 학술지들도 추측한 것처럼, “지난 몇 주가 [ISDS 사건의] 호황의 시작을 의미할 수 있”습니다.[7]  실제로, 아르헨티나의 금융위기나 아랍의 봄과 같은 과거의 위기 상황은 여러 ISDS 분쟁 사건으로 이어졌습니다.

코로나19에 대응하기 위한 정부의 조치 중 ISDS 분쟁에 휘말릴 수 있는 조치들로는 다음의 예를 생각할 수 있습니다.

  • 바이러스 확산을 억제하고 노동자를 보호하기 위한 영업 활동을 제한하거나 폐쇄하는 조치.
  • 민간 병원의 시설을 강제 사용하거나, 민간 의료 공급자를 공적 통제 하에 두거나, 제조업체에게 인공호흡기 제작을 요구하는 등 보건 체제에 필요한 자원을 확보하는 조치.
  • 가계 및 사업자에 대한 주택담보대출 또는 임대료 면제를 의무화하는 조치.
  • 코로나19 위기로 어려움을 겪고 있는 전략 기업들의 해외 인수 방지 조치.
  • 공공요금을 동결하고 공급중단을 유예함으로써 손 씻기 및 위생에 필요한 깨끗한 물에 대한 접근성을 보장하는 조치.
  • 의약품, 진단장비와 백신을 감당할 수 있는 가격으로 유지하는 조치.
  • 채무 재조정 조치.


코로나19 관련 ISDS 사건이 연달아 터지면 그로 인한 배상은 막대할 수 있습니다. 알려진 ISDS 사건 1,023건 중 13건은 미래 이익 손실을 포함하여 10억 달러 이상으로 결말(중재부의 배상 결정 또는 합의)이 났습니다.[8]
공개된 ISDS 사건들을 살펴보면, 2018년 말까지 전 세계 여러 나라들이 외국인 투자자에게 배상하라고 명령을 받거나 배상하기로 합의한 금액은 미화 880억 달러에 달합니다.[9] 일부 개발도상국들은 현재 수십억 달러의 ISDS 사건에 휘말려 있습니다.

코로나19 위기에 대응하느라 정부 자원이 한계에 달한 상황에서 공적 자금을 생명과 일자리, 생계를 살리는 데에 쓰지 못하고, ISDS 분쟁에 대응하는 법률 비용이나 배상금 지불에 전용되어서는 안 됩니다. 그리고, 코로나19와의 싸움이 계속되리라는 점을 감안할 때, 현재 많은 사례들이 규제 위축 효과를 불러와 정부는 배상금 지불에 대한 두려움으로부터 코로나19 대유행에 대처하기 위한 조치들을 완화하거나 연기 또는 철회하는 치명적인 결과를 낳을 수 있습니다. 

우리는, 이런 일이 일어나지 않도록 각국 정부가 첫번째 ISDS 사건이 터지지 전에 아래의 조치들을 시급하게 즉각 취할 것을 촉구합니다.

  1. 외국인 투자자의 주장에 대해 그것이 코로나19와 관련되어 있다고 국가가 생각하는 경우에는 어떠한 형태로는 ISDS의 적용을 영구적으로 제한한다.
  2. 코로나19 위기와 싸우면서 조치를 취한 어떤 정부를 상대로 한 모든 사안에 대해 대유행의 대응에 역량을 집중해야 하는 동안에는 모든 ISDS 사건을 중단한다.
  3. 코로나19 대유행 동안에는 ISDS 배상을 위해 공적 자금이 기업에 지출되지 않도록 보장한다.
  4. ISDS를 포함하는 새로운 협정의 협상이나 서명, 비준을 중지한다.
  5. ISDS가 포함된 기존 조약들을 폐기하고, ‘생존 조항(survival clause)’이 조약의 폐기 이후에도 분쟁을 제기할 수 있도록 허용하지 않도록 한다.
  6. 코로나19로 드러난 위협에 비추어 볼 때, ISDS가 포함된 현행 조약들을 종합적으로 재검토하여 취지에 부합하는지 확인해야 한다.

 

우리가 요구하는 조치들을 어떻게 구현할 수 있는지에 관한 자세한 내용은 이 서한에 첨부된 본 서면의 부속문서(Annex p12)를 참조하시기 바랍니다.

우리는 귀하가 공공의 이익을 위해 조치를 취해야 하는 정부의 의무가 투자자들이 ISDS를 통해 얻을 수 있는 것을 압도하여 안전하게 보호되도록 즉시 행동에 옮길 것을 촉구합니다.

연명 서명자 : 생략 (서한 영문본의 “Signed” 참조, 영문본의 연서명자는 6월 17일까지 서명한 단체들의 명단으로 그 후에 서명한 단체들은 포함되어 있지 않습니다. 국내 단체들로는 공공연구노조, 민주사회를 위한 변호사모임 국제통상위원회, 시민건강연구소, 전국금속노동조합, 주권자전국회의가 추가로 서명하였습니다.) 

 

 <공개서한 영문 및 전 세계 연명 단체 명단> https://wp.me/P6NxJb-1tc


Open letter to governments on ISDS and COVID-19

The letter in French | The letter in Spanish |The letter in German
PDF versions: English | Español | Français

To Governments:

We are writing to you today to urge you to take a lead in ensuring countries around the world do not face a wave of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases arising from actions taken to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing economic crisis.

Globally, some governments are taking actions to save lives, stem the pandemic, protect jobs, counter economic disaster and ensure peoples’ basic needs are met. The level of these actions has been unprecedented in modern times and the need for these actions has been clear. But the expansive reach of the ISDS system could open such critical government actions to claims for millions in compensation from foreign investors. The numbers of such claims could also be unprecedented and impose massive financial burdens on governments struggling under the burden of devastating health and economic crises.

ISDS in various forms is written into many trade and investment agreements. It allows foreign investors – and foreign investors alone – to sue governments in secretive tribunals outside of the national legal system for amounts far higher than are likely to be available to them in domestic courts.

The lawyers, who profit enormously from the ISDS system, are already fishing for corporate clients interested in using ISDS tribunals to extract large sums from governments over actions they have taken in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Law firms,[1]trade experts,[2] UN bodies[3] and human rights experts[4] have already predicted an imminent wave of ISDS cases. Specialist law journals have speculated that: “the past few weeks may mark the beginning of a boom” of ISDS cases.[5] Crisis situations in the past, such as the Argentine financial crisis or the Arab Spring, have led to many cases.

Cases could arise from actions that many governments have taken, such as those with the aim of:

  • restricting and closing business activities to limit the spread of the virus and protect workers
  • securing resources for health systems by requisitioning use of private hospital facilities, putting private healthcare providers under public control, or requiring manufacturers to produce ventilators
  • mandating relief from mortgage payments or rent for households and businesses
  • preventing foreign takeovers of strategic businesses stricken by the crisis
  • ensuring access to clean water for hand-washing and sanitation by freezing utility bills and suspending disconnections
  • ensuring medicines, tests and vaccines are affordable
  • debt restructuring

The damage from a COVID-related wave of ISDS cases could be immense. From among the 1,023 known ISDS cases, thirteen have resulted in awards or settlements of more than US$1billion, including for lost future profits.[6] By the end of 2018, states worldwide had been ordered or agreed to pay investors in publicly known ISDS cases the amount of US$88 billion.[7] Some developing countries have billions outstanding in pending ISDS claims.

At a time when government resources are stretched to the limit in responding to the crisis, public money should not be diverted from saving lives, jobs and livelihoods into paying ISDS awards or legal fees to fight a claim. And given that the battle against COVID-19 will continue, a spate of cases now could result in a ‘regulatory chilling’ effect, in which governments water down, postpone or withdraw actions to tackle the pandemic from the fear of such payments, which could be deadly.

In order to prevent this, we urge governments to immediately and urgently take the following steps, before the first cases are brought:

  1. Permanently restrict the use of ISDS in all its forms in respect of claims that the state considers to concern COVID-19 related measures.
  2. Suspend all ISDS cases on any issue against any government while it is fighting COVID-19 crises, when capacity needs to be focussed on the pandemic response.
  3. Ensure that no public money is spent paying corporations for ISDS awards during the pandemic.
  4. Stop negotiating, signing, and or ratifying any new agreements that include ISDS.
  5. Terminate existing agreements with ISDS, ensuring that ‘survival clauses’ do not allow cases to be brought subsequently.
  6. In light of threats exposed by the pandemic, comprehensively review existing agreements that include ISDS to see if they are fit for purpose.

More information on how to implement these actions is available in the annex to this letter.

We urge you to take immediate action to ensure that the duty of governments to regulate in the public interest is safeguarded and put beyond the scope of ISDS claims.


Annex: How to implement the proposals from the open letter on ISDS and COVID-19?

This annex is a companion to the open letter to governments on ISDS and COVID-19 signed by 630 organisations from around the world.

The letter addresses the imminent threat of ISDS lawsuits as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related unfolding economic crises[8] and urges governments to take immediate action to ensure that the duty of governments to regulate in the public interest is safeguarded and put beyond the scope of ISDS claims.

The letter proposes six measures governments should urgently take. These proposals are legally sound and within the full prerogative of governments’ sovereignty to implement.

This annex aims to give more details about the legal avenues governments can take to implement the proposals from the letter.

1- Permanently restrict the use of ISDS in all its forms in respect of claims that the state considers to concern COVID-19 related measures.

This measure is already gathering wide support worldwide. There are, however, different ways to implement this proposal:

  1. Governments can, in some treaties, withhold consent to ISDS.  There are 98 of the 2577 IIAs mapped by UNCTAD that require case by case consent to ISDS disputes. This means that investors cannot sue unless governments explicitly agree to be sued. Therefore, withholding consent to arbitrate is the legal right of governments and it is an easy step to take.
  2. In 96% of the IIAs in force, governments have agreed to automatic consent. However, governments have the option to withdraw consent to ISDS. This legal avenue has already been flagged years ago by academics and more recently, detailed language has been developed on how this could be achieved.
    It is important to note that while this measure will send a strong signal to the international community about the desire of governments to put a break to ISDS, it is unlikely to stop the actual filing of ISDS cases by investors. In the past, even after Latin American governments decided to withdraw consent to be sued at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), investors continued suing and ICSID arbitrators accepted to decide on those disputes.
  3. One other way to restrict the use of ISDS would be by following the IISD proposal of an “Agreement for the coordinated suspension of investor-state dispute settlement with respect to COVID-19 related measures and disputes”. IISD proposes the signing of a multilateral agreement, but also offers the option of a bilateral suspension agreement that could be negotiated between countries or blocs of countries. Countries resorting to bilateral solutions can still participate in multilateral efforts as a parallel, longer-term effort.

When we refer to ISDS in all its forms, we are making reference to other models of investor-state dispute settlement beyond the traditional included in most international investment agreements. In particular, the phrase is meant to include the investment court system proposal as embedded in the European Union (EU)-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EU-Singapore and EU-Vietnam free trade agreements. It would also include the Multilateral Investment Court proposal currently being discussed in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

2- Suspend all ISDS cases on any issue against any government while it is fighting COVID-19 crises, when capacity needs to be focussed on the pandemic response.

There are currently 397 open ISDS cases against 83 countries. All of these governments, one way or another, are dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. Yet, they also have to worry about responding to the demands of the ongoing ISDS cases.

For example, Bolivia, has already asked tribunals in two ongoing cases (Glencore v. Bolivia and  Orlandini and Compania Minera Orlandini v. Bolivia) to suspend proceedings explaining the government was unable to prepare its defense due to the pandemic crisis. In both cases, the Tribunals rejected the request for suspension of the cases. This is unacceptable at a time when the World Health Organization’s Director General has said the whole of government must refocus on suppressing and controlling COVID-19.

Furthermore, from 1 March until 25 May 2020 when most governments were in the midst of the pandemic crisis, 12 new ISDS cases were filed at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) alone.[9] Most of those were against Latin American countries, and Colombia was the worst hit with three lawsuits.

Unfortunately, it is not in governments’ power to suspend ongoing proceedings. It is the decision of investors and arbitrators. So, in this case, governments will need to come together in a political declaration, which gathers the support of key international institutions, asking for a moratorium on all ongoing ISDS cases.

3- Ensure that no public money is spent paying corporations for ISDS awards during the pandemic.

Foreign debt moratoriums and cancellation programmes have recently received widespread support, including from international bodies such as the World Bank, UNCTAD among others.

From a policy perspective, the same rationale that applies to foreign debt payments should apply to ISDS debt. It would be rational for governments to stop payment of outstanding debts as a result of any ISDS awards while they face the mounting health and economic crises related to COVID-19, as well as reject payment of any ISDS awards related to actions that the state considers to concern COVID-19 related measures. Countries should discuss relief or restructuring of the payments with the creditors, in this case investors who have won an ISDS case.

Legally, ISDS awards can be set aside by the courts of the country that is the ‘seat’ of the arbitration, based on grounds set in the national law of arbitration. Generally, the grounds for annulment are limited and the number of successful annulments is consequently low. Grounds included in national arbitration laws, usually based on the UNCITRAL Model Law or the New York Convention, are limited to validity of the form and substance of the arbitration agreement, procedural elements pertaining to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and compliance with its mandate, and public policy grounds. Given the exceptional circumstances attached to the COVID-19 crisis, states could take action to clarify these grounds in their national laws, particularly making ISDS awards that result from claims challenging COVID-19 related measures and undermining the capacity of the losing state to respond to the national COVID-19 crisis, incompatible with public policy considerations. Moreover, states could consider clarifying that the validity of the arbitration agreement does not hold where a respondent state had unilaterally withdrawn consent to ISDS as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

4- Stop negotiating, signing, and or ratifying any new agreements that include ISDS.

There are hundreds of investment treaties that are currently under negotiation or have been signed but await ratification to enter into force. It is the prerogative of any government to put a stop to that process.

For example, recently the government of New Zealand decided to oppose ISDS in new agreements, including in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Also, all governments part of RCEP negotiations decided to exclude ISDS from the negotiations.

5- Terminate existing agreements with ISDS, ensuring that ‘survival clauses’ do not allow cases to be brought subsequently.

There are four possible avenues for governments to terminate their current investment agreements:

  1. Multilateral termination: On 5 May 2020, 23 European Member States signed a joint agreement for the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties among themselves. This is a clear example of how multilateral termination could be achieved.
  2. Unilateral termination: many other countries have terminated bilateral investment treaties unilaterally (e.g. South Africa, Indonesia, India, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Tanzania, and Italy, among others).
  3. Mutual consent of the parties involved based on Article 54(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (examples of recent termination by mutual agreement include Czech Republic terminated its BITs with Denmark, Italy, Malta and Slovenia; also Argentina and Indonesia agreed to terminate their BIT).
  4. Joint agreement of the governments in free trade agreements to remove ISDS from the investment chapter.[10]

The easiest option to pursue (unilateral termination), would trigger the survival clause which allows investors that were already in the country at the time of termination to continue suing the government for a set time (up to 20 years) after the treaty was terminated.

It is worth noticing that options 1, 3 and 4 could annul the effects of survival clauses, so investors would not be allowed to continue suing the government after the termination of the treaty.

IISD has recently published a briefing on Best Practices about “Terminating a Bilateral Investment Treaty” that offers specific language and addresses different considerations to take into account for governments.

It is worth mentioning that recent studies have found that termination of investment agreements does not affect investment flows.

6- In light of threats exposed by the pandemic, comprehensively review existing agreements that include ISDS to see if they are fit for purpose

Twenty years after most of these treaties were signed, there is a clear need to carry out comprehensive reviews of these type agreements. This need becomes even more urgent seeing the threats that the international investment regime poses in light of the current pandemic. Assessing the risks of these agreements vis a vis the benefits becomes imperative.

During the last decade, several governments have launched comprehensive reviews of their investment treaties. Among those, South Africa and Ecuador for example carried out publicly available reviews following different methodologies. In all cases, however, they ended up establishing that the risks of the agreements outweighed any possible benefit, and therefore recommended that governments roll back ISDS commitments and refrain from committing to ISDS in the future.

Furthermore, academics like Lauge N Poulsen, Jonathan Bonnitcha and Jason Webb Yackee have developed an analytical framework for assessing costs and benefits of Investment Protection Treaties, that provides clear methodology for how this type of assessment could be implemented.


[1] See for example: https://www.alston.com/en/insights/events/2020/04/the-coming-wave-of-covid-19-arbitration/ , https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2020/04/COVID-19-Measures-Leveraging-Investment-Agreements-to-Protect-Foreign-Investments , https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2020/05/reed-smith-quarterly-international-arbitration-focus , https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1222354/could-covid-19-emergency-measures-give-rise-to-investment-claims-first-reflections-from-italy ,  https://www.acerislaw.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-and-investment-arbitration/

[2] https://www.iisd.org/library/investor-state-claims-amidst-covid-19

[3] https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcbinf2020d3_en.pdf

[4] http://ccsi.columbia.edu/2020/05/05/isds-moratorium-during-covid-19/

[5] https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1261213/third-party-funders-business-is-booming-during-pandemic

[6] https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement

[7] Calculation based on the UNCTAD database for cases up to December 2018. Out of the 310 disclosed cases which had been decided in favor of the investor or settled, information on damages was provided for 213 cases (69%).

[8] https://longreads.tni.org/pandemic-profiteers/https://longreads.tni.org/cashing-in-on-the-pandemic;  https://www.iisd.org/library/investor-state-claims-amidst-covid-19; and https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcbinf2020d3_en.pdf

[9] 12 ISDS cases (11 based on IIAs and 1 based on a contract) were filed against the following countries: Colombia (3 cases), Peru (2), Panama (1), Mexico (1), Dominican Republic (1), Norway (1), Croatia (1), Serbia (1), Romania (1)

[10]  For example the recently concluded Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) amended the North  American Free  Trade  Agreement (NAFTA) to completely remove ISDS between the US and Canada and, partially, between US and Mexico. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between.

  1. Law360 2020년 4월 8일 분석기사(Third-Party Funders’ Business is Booming During Pandemic)
  2. UNCITRAL, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.179 – Submission from the Government of the Republic of Korea
  3. 가령, Alston & Bird, Webinar (April 29, 2020) The coming wave of COVID-19 arbitration – Looking ahead, Ropes & Gray LLP, COVID-19 measures: Leveraging investment agreements to protect foreign investments, April 28, 2020, Reed Smith quarterly, ‘International  Arbitration Focus’: Investor -state arbitration, 5 May 2020, Global Arbitration Review, Could COVID-19 emergency measures give rise to investment claims? First reflection from Italy, 26 March 2020, ACERIS Law, The COVID-19 pandemic and investment arbitration, 26 March 2020  참조.
  4. IISD, Protecting against investor-state claims amidst COVID-19: A call to action for governments
  5. UNCTAD, Investment policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic
  6. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Call for ISDS Moratorium duing COVID-19 Crisis and Response, May 6 2020
  7. LAW360 기사 Caroline Simson, Third-party funders’ business is booming during pandemic
  8. UNCTAD, Investment Policy Hub, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator
  9. 이 금액은 유엔 무역개발회의(UNCTAD)가 집계한 2018년 12월까지의 사건들을 토대로 한 것입니다. 투자자에게 유리한 결정이 내려졌거나 합의로 종결된 사건 310건 중 배상액에 관한 내용이 공개된 것은 모두 213건(69%)입니다