Arbitral awards of ISDS cases have greatly contributed to the emergence of the “regulatory chill” through broad and investor-protection-oriented interpretation of investment treaty provisions. Therefore, it is essential to examine cases concerning the public-interest actions of the states, which shed light on the lessons to be learnt for drafting “balancing provisions”. One of these cases is Bear Creek Mining v. Peru.  It involves a dispute arising out of circumstances, where the investor seeks damages from the host state for having revoked a permit in response to protests by a local population against the investment operations. This article analyzes how arbitral award of Bear Creek Mining case has contributed to the “regulatory chill” and proposes certain mechanisms aimed at eliminating the “chilling effect” of the treaty provisions.

States’ right to regulate, investment arbitration, FTAs

Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21. Award (30 November, 2017)

Copper Mesa Mining Corp v. Republic of Ecuador, Case No.2012-2, Award (PCA 2016)

Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru (signed 28 May 2009, entered into force 1 August 2009)

Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted by the Association of Human Rights and the Environment-Puno (DHUMA) and Mr. Carlos Lopez (Non-Disputing Parties) (10 June 2016)

Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case

James Harrison, ‘Significant International Environmental Cases: 2017-18’ (2018) 30 (3) Journal of Environmental Law

Jean-Michel Marcoux and Andrew Newcombe ‘Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru: Two Sides of a ‘Social License’ to Operate’ (2018) 33 (3) ICSID Review

George K. Foster ‘Investor-Community Conflicts in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Rethinking “Reasonable Expectations” and Expecting More from Investors’ (2019) 69 (105) American University Law Review

Dilboboev, N. (2022). Issues for Enforcement of Decisions of the International Investment Arbitration on Interim Measures. Available at SSRN 4299453

Yulduz, Akhtamova. “Balancing Investment Protection and State’s Regulatory Space in the Light of Investment Treaty Regime” Review of law sciences 1.Спецвыпуск (2020).

Stefanie Schacherer ‘Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan’ (2018) Investment Treaty News < https://www.iisd.org/itn/2018/10/18/metal-tech-v-uzbekistan/> accessed 20 February 2021

Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Government of the Republic of Türkiye Concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 25 October 2017, entered into force 9 July 2020) https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/5846/download

Turkish Model of Bilateral Investment Treaty, May 2009 https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/2852/download

Ener, Mustafa Alper, Uluslararası Yatırım Hukuku, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2021