The Rise of Investor-State Public Health Disputes: Lessons Learned from the Idiosyncrasy of Argentinian and NAFTA Cases in the Era of covid-19
| Autor | Munia El Harti Alonso, Sophia Herbst |
| Cargo | Co-Author Munia El Harti Alonso is a Senior Clerk at Carballo Law LLP/Co-Author Sophia Herbst is an Associate at the Law Ofices of Charles Camp P.C. |
| Páginas | 83-100 |
con-tex to • re vista de de recho y ec onomía • n.º 5 6 • julio -diciemb re 2021 • pp. 83-100
derech o ec onómic o
inter naciona l
The Rise of Investor-
State Public Health
Disputes: Lessons Learned
from the Idiosyncrasy
of Argentinian and
NAFTA Cases in the
Era of COVID-19*
MUNIA EL HARTI ALONSO1
SOPHIA HERBS T2
ABS TR ACT
Argentina’s prominence in the history of ISDS makes for a seminal case study of the
tension between state measures and F DI. Argentina, like other Latin American coun-
tries, has taken a proactive approach to mitigating the current pandemic. Notably,
these emergency public health decisions may hinder FDI, thus leading to an increase
in investment disputes. This paper aims to comparatively analyze the past Argentin-
ian crisis and health related NAFTA cases, using lessons learned to provide guidance
in anticipation of COVID-19 disputes. In order to explore this topic, a discussion of
jurisdictional and procedural q uestions allow for a modern application of past issues.
Keywords: COVID-19; NAFTA; Argentina; Latin Amer ica; Foreign Direct Investment/
FDI; Arbitration; Public Health; Dispute Resolut ion; Emergency; Investment Disputes
1 Co-Author Mu nia El Harti Alonso is a Senior C lerk at Carballo Law LL P, focusing on international
litigation of investme nt disputes in Latin Amer ica and Florida. Ms. El Har ti Alonso can be reached
at me 725@georgetown.edu.
2 Co-Author S ophia Herbst is an Associat e at the Law Offices of Charle s Camp P.C., working primar-
ily on international litig ation and commercial arbitratio n. Ms. Herbst can be reached at sher bst@
law. gw u. edu .
* DOI: https://doi.org/10.18601/01236458.n56.05
84
munia el ha rti al onso, sop hia her bst
con-tex to • re vista de de recho y ec onomía • n.º 5 6 • julio -diciemb re 2021 • pp. 83-100
RESUMEN
La prominencia de Argentina en la historia del arreglo de d iferencias relativas a inver-
siones internaciona les (ISDS) permite un estudio de caso fund amental sobre la tensión
entre las medidas estatales y la inversión extranjera directa (IED). Argentina, al igual
que otros países latinoamericanos, ha adoptado un enfoque proactivo para mitigar la
pandemia actual. En part icular, estas decisiones de salud pública de emergencia pueden
obstaculizar la IE D, lo que conlleva a un aumento de las disputas de inversiones. Este
artículo tiene como objetivo analizar comparativamente la crisis argentina pasada, y
los casos del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLC AN) relacionados
con la salud publica, capitalizando sobre las lecciones aprendidas para proporcionar
una guía en anticipación de las disputas de la covid-19. Para explorar este tema, una
discusión sobre cuestiones jur isdiccionales y de procedimiento permite una aplicación
moderna de cuestiones pasadas.
Palabras clave: cov id-19, NAFTA, Argentina, Inversión Extranjera Directa /IED,
arbitraje, salud pública, resolución de conflictos, emergencia, diferencias relativas a
inversiones.
INTRODUCTION
While public health measures under the broader scope of the public order have been
analyzed in the past, public health measures per se remain under-scr utinized in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Sheargold & Mitchell, 2019; Warren-Clem, 2015;
Voon, 2015; Korzun, 2017). Rather, current doctrine has focused on force majeure
defenses, (Joshi, 2020; Mann & Readhead, 2020) or procedural aspe cts such as virtual
hearings (Scherer, 2020, pp.407-448). This article seeks to comparatively examine
(i) Argentinian case law defining the contours of the notion of crisis and (ii) specific
public health related North American Free Trade Agre ement (NAFTA) decis ions–using
lessons learned to provide a predictive roadmap in anticipation of COVI D-19 I nves tor -
State disputes.
Argentina’s prominence in the history of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
makes for a seminal case study of the tension between state measures and Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI). Argentina, like other Latin American countries, has made
emergency public health decisions during the course of this pandemic, which may
hinder F DI. The tension between F DI and the public order is exacerbated more than
ever in the context of COVID-19. Consequently, this tension is increasing the risk of
public health related disputes. In a status quo dynamic, the pandemic is set to give
sovereigns an increased margin to reg ulate as they seek to mitigate the effects of the
pandemic (Titi, 2014, p. 240). Foreseeing the rise of public health investment disputes,
this article points to the idiosyncrasies of NA FTA and Argentinian investor-state cases.
Both caseloads are axiomatic to predicting (Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this article) and
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba