Author’s Main Assertion
The author’s central assertion regarding corporate bias in investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms is that the World Bank Group’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) favors corporate and commercial interests. Thus, the group pursues the goals of government and non-governmental non-corporate actors. The institution does not consider non-commercial interests which include the environment and public well-being (Broad, 2015). The author purports that these biases strengthen one another making ICSID incapable of dealing with current and future challenges. The group protects investors’ rights to file a case against the government in instances where future profits are at risk. However, the institution is unjust and it violates human rights.
Evidence of Author’s Assertion
The author presents evidence to reinforce her assertion by giving the Pan Rim Cayman LLC vs Republic of El Salvador case. The government of El Salvador was sued for refusing to grant the mining company an exploitation concession (Broad, 2015). Even though there are limited economic benefits in El Salvador, the state had numerous concerns about the environmental effects of gold mining. Some groups, such as local communities, the Catholic Church, and human rights advocates were against mining projects. Their argument referred mainly to the pollution of the Rio Lempa watershed by gold deposits (Broad, 2015). Pac Rim never received the concession for failing to fulfill all the requirements and sued El Salvador’s government. ICSID allowed the case to proceed, despite Pac Rim failing to meet all the necessary conditions. This situation showed how the institution unjustly favors the organization.
My Opinion on the Author’s Assertion
I agree with the author’s assertion and the evidence she provides to support her argument. The institution judges the Pan Rim case neglecting the El Salvador government’s views, local communities, and the Catholic Church. It does not prioritize the protection of the environment and human rights. Moreover, allowing the case to proceed despite Pac Rim not fulfilling the necessary gold mining conditions indicates the level of unfairness within the institution.
Reference
Broad, R. (2015). Corporate bias in the World Bank group’s International Centre for settlement of investment Disputes: A case study of a global mining corporation suing El Salvador. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 36 (4), 851-874.