Date & time
In recent years there have been growing concerns about the potential risks of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) in relation to legitimate government regulation.
Some of these concerns have focused on perceptions that investment tribunals have interpreted investment obligations too broadly, others have focused on perceived defects in the arbitral process.
In response to these concerns, a number of governments have taken steps to assert a greater degree of control over ISDS. They have done this through both asserting more control over the interpretation of key obligations, and taking a more prescriptive approach to the arbitral process. Governments have also taken innovative approaches to exclude key sensitivities from ISDS.
This seminar surveys some of the key developments in recent agreements, including the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and culminating with the European Union’s initiative to replace the current system of ad-hoc investment tribunals with a standing investment court.
About the Speaker
Richard Braddock is a founding Partner of Lexbridge Lawyers, the first specialist public international law practice in the Asia-Pacific region. Richard specialises in international trade and investment law.
Before joining Lexbridge, Richard worked as an international lawyer and treaty negotiator for the Australian Government for close to a decade, leading trade and investment law units in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of International Law.
Richard was a legal advisor and negotiator for most of Australia’s Free Trade Agreement negotiations, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and FTAs with China, Japan, Korea, and ASEAN. He acted as lead investment negotiator in the TPP and ASEAN negotiations.
Richard was also a senior member of the legal team which successfully defended the investor-state arbitration claim brought by Philip Morris against Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure.