header-logo header-logo

Leaving the ECT: bad for investors, wrong for the climate?

12 July 2024 / James Rogers , Jonathan P Cowe
Issue: 8079 / Categories: Features , International , Environment
printer mail-detail
James Rogers & Jonathan P Cowe warn of the unintended consequences of leaving the Energy Charter Treaty
  • Explores the ramifications of the UK and EU’s decision to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty.
  • Argues withdrawal removes important legal protections for investments in the energy sector, deterring investment in renewables.

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is an international multilateral agreement established in the 1990s to protect foreign investments in the energy sector. The treaty’s primary purpose is to ensure a stable and transparent investment environment by requiring member states to uphold principles of fair and equitable treatment of investments. It also prohibits the expropriation of investments without prompt compensation and includes a mechanism for investors to seek legal redress for breaches of these obligations via international arbitration. These protections cover all energy-related investments, from fossil fuels to renewable energy projects.

The treaty was a product of the 1990s wave of globalisation and efforts to facilitate East-West trade in energy, particularly oil and gas. Signatories to the ECT included

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll