As climate change vulnerability challenges in Latin America become more urgent, the enforcement of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) obligations\u2014particularly those related to climate adaptation\u2014is an emerging issue in arbitration in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). This article explores how arbitral tribunals are addressing ESG-related claims involving climate adaptation obligations in Latin America, assessing the extent to which climate adaptation measures are enforceable in ISDS frameworks. Following the introduction, Part I describes the applicable international and domestic climate change law frameworks and addresses contractual obligations that foreign investors have for ESG and climate adaptation in these projects. Part II addresses case studies in Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador to illustrate the tension between protecting investors\u2019 interests and the State\u2019s authority to enforce climate adaptation measures. Part III explores procedural challenges in ESG arbitration that threaten to limit the effectiveness of arbitration in the ISDS context. Part IV proposes substantive and procedural reforms to promote arbitration as a viable mechanism for enforcing climate adaptation standards in Latin America while balancing investor rights and public policy objectives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As climate change vulnerability challenges in Latin America become more urgent, the enforcement of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) obligations\u2014particularly those related to climate adaptation\u2014is an emerging issue in arbitration in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). This article explores how arbitral tribunals are addressing ESG-related claims involving climate adaptation obligations in Latin America, assessing the extent…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,14,466],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-2","category-current-issue","category-volume-58-issue-2"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4529"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4529\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4531,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4529\/revisions\/4531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}