Karl P. Sauvant, PhD
Resident Senior Fellow

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia Law School - The Earth Institute, Columbia University
435 West 116th St., Rm. JGH 825, New York, NY 10027
p(212) 854 0689 | cell: (646) 724 5600 e: [log in to unmask] | t: @CCSI_Columbia

"China Moves the G20 toward an International Investment Framework and Investment Facilitation", "China Moves the G20 on Investment", "The Rise of Self-judging Essential Security Interest Clauses in IIAs", "Can Host Countries have Legitimate Expectations?", "The Next Step in Governance: The Need for Global Micro-regulatory Frameworks", "How International Investment Agreements can Protect Free Media", "The Evolving International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Ways Forward", "China's Outward FDI and International Investment Law", and  "Policy Options for Promoting FDI in the LDCs" are available at and




Columbia FDI Perspectives

Perspectives on topical foreign direct investment issues
No. 192  January 30, 2017

Editor-in-Chief: Karl P. Sauvant ([log in to unmask])
Managing Editor: Matthew Schroth ([log in to unmask])


Influencing investment disputes from the outside
Joseph (Yusuf) Saei *

Non-disputing third parties (NDTPs) often try to shape investor-state arbitrations by asking to submit “friends of the court” (or “amicus curiae”) briefs. This Perspective identifies three areas of activism in addition to the formal process of submitting a “brief” in the primary dispute: pursuing parallel strategies, engaging with consent-based processes and embracing external assistance.
First, consider the parallel strategy pursued by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the case of Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia.[1] In addition to organizing a “Cochabamba water revolt” against water services privatization, they arranged an “International Citizens’ Petition” to the World Bank, gathering signatures from more than 300 civil society organizations and public leaders. This petition requested that the arbitral tribunal visit Cochabamba to receive public testimony. Although it declined the request, the Tribunal did affirm its power to interview third parties on its own motion.
NGOs also employed a media strategy to arouse public scrutiny and, in this manner, increased public relations costs for the claimant. They discovered that Bechtel (the owner of Aguas del Tunari) was in negotiations for a water contract with San Francisco’s City Council. As a result of civil society mobilization, the Council passed a resolution commending efforts in Bolivia to oppose privatization.[2] Bechtel ultimately dropped its claim.
The European Commission (EC) exemplifies another creative approach toward activism adjacent to primary disputes. EC strategy extends to the post-award annulment stage and proceedings in national courts. Other NDTPs should also consider whether they can intervene in national courts that have more progressive amicus or permissive joinder rules.
Second, NDTP practitioners can engage with consent-based processes to influence rule formation. For example, starting in 2007, two NGOs that repeatedly petition tribunals to submit third-party briefs—the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)—lobbied the UNCITRAL Working Group II on Arbitration and Conciliation to develop provisions on transparency and third-party participation. The Working Group was in the process of updating the 1976 arbitration rules, which did not provide for liberal NDTP participation. Certain countries and NGOs representing the status quo (more than eighteen arbitration interest groups in total) forcefully resisted the NGOs’ efforts, twice resulting in a denial of their observer status. However, IISD and CIEL eventually garnered support from the EC (another NDTP practitioner active at UNCITRAL), as well as certain country delegations (notably Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, and the United States). Their efforts culminated in the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency[3] and the Mauritius Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration.[4]
NDTPs should continue to engage with consent-based processes open to NGO input and should also seek to influence the incorporation of liberal NDTP procedures in international investment agreements (IIAs). The latter can be accomplished in the case of countries revising their model treaties and negotiating new IIAs, and by persuading governments to sign the Mauritius Convention, thereby ensuring the retroactive application of the transparency and participation rules to existing treaties.
Finally, NDTPs—when they do wish to submit briefs—can be resourceful in seeking to fund their participation. In at least two cases, law school clinics (in the United States, France and Canada) have helped to research and prepare briefs in consultation with local groups. Since the earliest NDTP efforts, law professors have lent their expertise to third-party petitions and briefs. Finally, private philanthropic organizations—including the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Lannan Foundation—have supported NDTP participation in investor-state disputes.
At the same time, NDTPs must understand that arbitral tribunals are becoming sensitive to third parties with deep pockets or external funding, and may ask them to fund portions of arbitral proceedings beyond their own submissions. In a recent decision permitting NDTP participation, the arbitral tribunal in Philip Morris v. Uruguay[5] reserved the right to order that certain costs (incurred by disputing parties in responding to NDTP briefs) be paid by the NDTP petitioners. It was unclear on what basis the tribunal would be able to do this, but imposing costs on NDTPs would force them to re-evaluate the benefits of intervention. On the other hand, cost orders against NDTPs would blur the distinction between disputing parties and third parties, justifying the latter’s demands for increased procedural rights alongside more substantive participation.
In sum, potential NDTPs should consider multiple avenues for voicing concerns and should choose the type of participation that is best suited to their needs. The more knowledge third parties have about the creative activism that is often connected to formal brief requests, the more they are likely to succeed in expressing the dynamic and diverse interests of global society.


* Joseph (Yusuf) Saei ([log in to unmask]) is a J.D. (2018) candidate at Yale Law School and was a Yale Fox International Fellow for 2015-2016. The author is grateful to Jan Kleinheisterkamp, Robert Howse and Howard Mann for their helpful peer reviews. The views expressed by the author of this Perspective do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Columbia University or its partners and supporters or those of any other entity. Columbia FDI Perspectives (ISSN 2158-3579) is a peer-reviewed series.

[1] Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3. 

[2] City of San Francisco, “Resolution commending Oscar Olivera and La Coordinadora for their successful efforts to combat water privatization in Bolivia,” Resolution No. 355-01 (approved May 11, 2001).

[5] Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Procedural Order No. 3, para. 31 (Feb. 17, 2015).


The material in this Perspective may be reprinted if accompanied by the following acknowledgment: “Joseph (Yusuf) Saei, ‘Influencing investment disputes from the outside,’ Columbia FDI Perspectives, No. 192, January 30, 2017. Reprinted with permission from the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (” A copy should kindly be sent to the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment at [log in to unmask].


For further information, including information regarding submission to the Perspectives, please contact: Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Matthew Schroth, [log in to unmask].

  • No. 191, Tarcisio Gazzini, “Beware of freezing clauses in international investment agreements,” January 16, 2017.
  • No. 190, Karl P. Sauvant, “China moves the G20 on international investment,” January 2, 2017.
  • No. 189, Robbie Schwieder, “Broadening the Global Compact agenda,” December 19, 2016.

All previous FDI Perspectives are available at


Karl P. Sauvant, Ph.D.
Resident Senior Fellow
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia Law School - Earth Institute
(212) 854-0689
Fax: (212) 854-7946

Copyright © 2017 Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), All rights reserved.
[log in to unmask]

Our mailing address is:

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI)

Columbia Law School - Earth Institute, Columbia University

435 West 116th Street

New York, NY 10027

Add us to your address book

unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

[log in to unmask]" alt="Image removed by sender. Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp">

[log in to unmask]" alt="Image removed by sender.">

Nothing contained in this e-mail, that is, its main text and the attachments thereto shall be construed as legally binding to the Bank of Tanzania. The Bank of Tanzania shall not be liable in any way whatsoever for any loss or damage resulting from opening of this e-mail, including the attachments thereto or the use of information contained therein.
Please, refer to the full disclaimer found at

AIB-L is brought to you by the Academy of International Business.
For information:
To post message: [log in to unmask]
For assistance: [log in to unmask]
AIB-L is a moderated list.