Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch blog on globalization and trade

Connect with GTW

Spotlight: Major Investor-State Cases Briefing

Do Trade Agreement International Investor Protections Imperil Local Communities & the Environment?

Return to Investor-State Attacks

Public Citizen and Oxfam America, in cooperation Congresswoman Linda Sánchez and Congressman Raúl Grijalva, sponsored a briefing on March 28, 2012, where congressional staff and allies heard from community leaders from El Salvador and Peru and legal experts how investor-state provisions are being used by corporations to evade environmental and human rights obligations.

View Video Footage from the Briefing:



Part 1  |  Part 2  |  Part 3  |   Part 4  |  Part 5  Part 6


Panelists

  • José de Echave, former ViceMinister of Environment, Peru
  • Luís Gonzaléz, Unidad Ecológica de El Salvador
  • Lori Wallach, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division
  • Marco Simons, Earth Rights International

Background

Three recent investor-state cases brought by extractive industry corporations against low-income Latin American countries illustrate a stark reality: legitimate public interest policymaking and the functions of domestic court systems are being undermined by unaccountable foreign tribunals, adversely affecting poor communities as well as national development goals.

Pacific Rim Mining Corp. v. El Salvador. After failing to complete the necessary environmental protection steps to obtain a mining permit in El Salvador’s main watershed region, Canadian gold mining company Pacific Rim Mining Corp. reincorporated a Cayman island subsidiary in Nevada and then filed an investor-state suit against El Salvador under CAFTA. The company now seeks hundreds of millions in compensation for its “lost profits” through an international tribunal, challenging the country’s mining laws. As an imminent jurisdictional ruling drags out, violence and threats against local environmentalists in the region where Pac Rim wants to run a cyanide-leach gold mine continue.

Chevron v. Ecuador. After 18 years of litigation in two countries, 30,000 indigenous peoples and farmers in Ecuador’s Amazon won a historic $18 billion ruling ordering Chevron to clean up horrific contamination of land and drinking water. But, instead of starting the long overdue clean up and provision of health care to the victims of their extreme pollution, Chevron filed an investor-state suit under the U.S-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty to try to evade complying with judgments made and confirmed in U.S. and Ecuador courts. Even before it decided it had jurisdiction, a tribunal issued an order for Ecuador’s president to block enforcement of the court orders. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing deep-pocketed corporations to challenge the functions of a country’s domestic court system and the decisions of its duly-appointed judges – and would violate Ecuador’s constitutional separation of powers.

Renco v. Peru Renco Group Inc, invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru, which has been designated as one of the top 10 most polluted sites in the world. The firm was sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Renco filed an investor-state suit under the U.S.-Peru FTA, alleging that Peru’s failure to grant it a third extension on its remediation obligations constituted a violation of the FTA investment provisions and demanding $800 million in compensation. The mere threat of the case puts pressure on the Peruvian government to weaken its environmental and health policies, and has disrupted justice in the victims’ case in U.S. courts.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.