Affaires d’États Vol. 4: Little Used and Unduly Maligned: The Story of the Joint Interpretive Statement

Presentation

Early this year, an inter-State body established under the United States and Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement issued a decision setting forth the United States’ and Colombia’s joint interpretation of a number of important and repeatedly litigated provisions in investment treaties. This joint interpretation is one of just a handful of such joint interpretive statements that States, acting as “masters of their treaties,” have concluded with respect to their international investment agreements, whether doing so pursuant to provisions in those treaties (as was the case for the US-Colombia statement), or in accordance with Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Such interpretations can reduce the ambiguity about treaty provisions, helping both investors and State Parties avoid wasting vast sums of money on legal disputes about a given agreement’s meaning, and better ensuring that States are able to avoid being subject to improper interpretations of their treaty obligations. However, this most recent joint interpretation, like other joint interpretations that States have concluded, has been subject to criticism and efforts to undermine its effectiveness (see, e.g., here and here).

As part of Paris Arbitration Week, Curtis is organizing a panel to identify and unpack the critiques that have been levelled at joint interpretive statements, and explore both the practical barriers impeding more widespread use of these tools by States and possible ways of overcoming those barriers.

Following the panel discussion, the audience will have an opportunity to meet the speakers virtually and continue the conversation in an open Zoom room.