If it rains on the mainland, in Colombia it does not clear up. According to the National State Judicial Defense Agency (ANDJE), there have been 34 lawsuits against Colombia. Seven processes have already concluded with a substantive decision. One of them, Glencore vs. Colombia, had an unfavorable result for the country, obliging the State to pay 19 million dollars to the investor. And we await the announcement of the compensation to be paid in the Eco Oro vs. Colombia.

Taking into account the processes concluded, Colombia has 22 active cases. In total, investors from the United States, Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and Switzerland are seeking compensation of 62.3 billion pesos, more than three tax reforms or one and a half health reforms. Consequently, in the face of an avalanche of unfavorable decisions, the capacity to carry out social reforms would be reduced.

Investors from the United States concentrate the largest number of cases and claims in the 34 controversies against Colombia. The FTA has hosted eight of these lawsuits, two of which have been concluded for Colombia, four are ongoing and two are in the pre-arbitration phase. In four cases, the amount of the claims has not been established, but in the other four, the aspirations of American investors amount to 50.5 trillion pesos.

Even if it wins the lawsuits, Colombia loses. The legal costs that the country bears are outrageous: we pay a minimum of 3 million dollars for each trial.

So far, the state has spent more than 270 billion pesos on legal costs. Although in the event of a victory, the costs are generally borne by the plaintiff, this is not always the case. For example, in the lawsuits brought by Astrida Benita Carrizosa, Alberto Carrizosa and AFC Investment Solutions, the resources invested in legal costs were not fully recovered.

As if that were not enough, ISDS mechanisms enabled two corrupt companies to sue Colombia. These are Odebrecht, convicted of corruption in several states, including Colombia, and Uber, a company that boasts of operating illegally and creating “regulatory shitstorms”, such as revealed Guardian with #UberFiles. Both processes are at the pre-arbitration stage.

Civil society calls for change

Given the impressive panorama of ISDS mechanisms, in Latin America various sectors of civil society have organized themselves to defend national economic, environmental and humanitarian interests.

On the one hand, NGOs such as Public Citizen, Institute for Policy Studies-Global Economy Project, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (USA) and the Platform for a Better Latin America without FTA have promoted the signing of a letter addressed to President Joe Biden to eliminate ISDS in force in the Americas.

This initiative took advantage of the fact that Biden himself said that the United States should not seek new agreements with ISDS mechanisms and that the renegotiation of NAFTA between Mexico, the United States and Canada eliminated these mechanisms except, unfortunately, in the fossil fuel sector in Mexico.

On the other hand, Colombia promotes the Coalition of Affected Communities and National and International Social Organizations which, in the same way, promotes the signing of a letter addressed to President Gustavo Petro to withdraw the country from investment protection agreements with ISDS mechanisms. (The petition can be signed at the following link: http://bit.ly/3jIfXxJ)

In the words of the Coalition, “the Colombian government is urged to fundamentally review and withdraw from treaties that allow lawsuits by multinational mining companies such as Glencore and Canadian companies Eco Oro, Galway Gold and Red Eagle before courts. courts designed to further their interests which are incompatible with human rights and environmental protection.