The State of Play in Vattenfall v. Germany II: Leaving the German public in the dark
Two years after Vattenfall brought Germany to international arbitration for a second time (Vattenfall II), the German public is still left out in the dark. This briefing note reviews the background to the case on Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power and outlines its current state of play.
Two years after Vattenfall brought Germany to international arbitration for a second time (Vattenfall II), the German public is still left out in the dark.
This briefing note reviews the background to the case on Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power and outlines its current state of play. A commentary follows on the transparency provisions applicable to arbitrations at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and discusses how some ICSID tribunals have dealt with matters of transparency and confidentiality. Finally, it argues for the release of decisions, orders, and submissions by the parties to the public, noting that there is nothing in the ICSID Rules that would disallow this type of transparency.
You might also be interested in
The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II)
The Swedish energy company Vattenfall has now followed through on its threat to bring an international arbitration claim against Germany in relation to that country's recent decision to phase out nuclear power. Damages claimed by Vattenfall could exceed €700 million.
Background paper on Vattenfall v. Germany arbitration
This paper provides background on an investment dispute between the Swedish energy utility Vattenfall and the Government of Germany pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty.
Stabilization Clauses: The hidden provisions that can hinder tax and investment policy reform
Stabilization clauses should no longer automatically be included in contracts between states and investors. If they are, they should, at a minimum, build on the latest international standards on stabilization to avoid being a barrier to sustainable development.
Why Trade Matters in the Plastic–Pollution Treaty Negotiations
The global push to end plastic pollution by 2040 highlights the critical intersection of trade and environmental action, with upcoming INC-5 negotiations focusing on reducing plastic production, consumption, and waste within a fair and effective international framework.