Skip to main content

Unlocking the Investment Arbitration System to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Mathilde Dupré & Stéphanie Kpenou, 20 April 2026

[English] [français]

Investment arbitration is increasingly recognised as an obstacle to the implementation of ambitious climate policies by states. This issue will be on the agenda of the “First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels”, which will take place in Colombia from 24 to 29 April 2026 and will be co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands.

In this context, and as part of the consultation on the Brazilian COP Presidency Roadmap entitled “Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels” (TAFF), the Veblen Institute has prepared this brief to put forward several concrete proposals.

Removing protection for fossil fuel investments is an essential prerequisite to ensure that taxpayers do not bear the excessive costs of the transition by compensating fossil fuel investors — often under valuation methods highly favourable to them — for public policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels and managing stranded assets.

Such removal of protection does not prejudge the trajectory or pace of the fossil fuel phase-out, which may legitimately vary from one country to another depending on their level of development and degree of dependence on fossil fuels.

In response to the call launched by more than 200 economists and academics, Colombian President Gustavo Petro announced on 23 March his intention to withdraw his country from the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. European governments should seize the opportunity of the Santa Marta Conference to plan a coordinated exit from the current investment protection regime together with other participating countries.

Europe plays a pivotal role in the global ISDS architecture, particularly a small group of countries — the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland — which account for a significant share of the treaties, disputes and climate risks generated by this system. This is what we demonstrate in our “Investment Arbitration Index: A Comparative Analysis of the Harmful Effects of Treaties Across 30 European Countries”, accompanied by an interactive “scoreboard” ranking 30 European countries according to the scale of their respective investment treaty networks, their actual use by investors, and their concrete impacts. The index is based on ten indicators, including the number of ISDS agreements signed, their use in sensitive sectors such as fossil fuels, and the amounts of compensation claimed and awarded.

Subscribe to the newsletter