UK-India investment treaty lets companies sue government, sources say
An investment treaty between Britain and India will contain a provision that allows companies to sue either government if they believe policy changes unfairly harm their investment or profits, two sources familiar with discussions told Reuters.
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism is aimed at protecting companies against possible unfair treatment under local laws, and will be included in an investment treaty that is expected to be struck alongside a free trade agreement shortly.
The mechanism has been criticised in recent years, including by Britain's previous Conservative government, for blocking efforts to fight climate change because fossil fuel producers can use it to protect their assets.
Britain has not included ISDS in any of the bilateral free trade deals it has struck since it left the European Union, though it is a feature of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) it has signed up to. India has also moved to limit ISDS in its treaties.
One of the sources said London had pushed for its inclusion in a deal with India as British businesses wanted reassurance that they would be treated fairly under the Indian legal system.
The Indian government declined to give an immediate response to a question about the current talks.
A spokesperson for Britain's trade ministry declined to comment on the matter but said any deal needed guarantees for businesses that they would be treated fairly.
The two sources said government officials on Tuesday told a meeting of businesses interested in the deal that ISDS was included.
Britain has never lost an ISDS claim by a company but according to UN data, of 30 ISDS cases brought against India since 2003, 8 were brought by UK-based companies under a previous agreement.
"We are determined to improve access for UK businesses, ensure their fair treatment, cut tariffs, and make trade cheaper and easier," the UK trade ministry spokesperson said.
Britain's left-of-centre Labour Party won power last year, and has been keen to stress that it is now the party of business as it restarts various trade negotiations.
Britain and India have been locked in trade talks, on and off, since January 2022, and are expected to strike a full trade deal soon. The Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal was in London earlier this week for late-stage talks, and returned on Friday for further discussions.
Tariffs on whisky, autos and agricultural products are being negotiated as part of the deal, while regulatory issues around the pharmaceutical sector are another sensitive area.
India had previously indicated its opposition to ISDS, scrapping a previous bilateral investment treaty with Britain in 2017 and moving to a model which allowed use of the mechanism only after routes through India's legal system had been exhausted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
3 hours ago
- Arabian Post
India Abstaining During Voting On UN Resolution For Ceasefire In Gaza Is The Lowest Point Of Diplomacy
By Nitya Chakraborty On Thursday June 12, Indian diplomacy under the Prime Minister Narendra Modi reached its lowest ebb when India abstained in the United Nations General Assembly from a vote on a resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The 193 member UN general assembly passed the resolution overwhelmingly with 149 countries in favour, 12 against and 19 countries including India, once the real leader of the global South. India did not support this resolution at a time when Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza and other areas of Palestine killing even the hungry and sick people who were going for food and medicines to the aid centres. Even the G-7 members excepting the U.S. have strongly spoken against the latest killings by Israel and they all excepting USA voted for the resolution. But India did not, it abstained. The 19 countries who abstained included apart from India, countries like Albania, Cameroon, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Malawi, Panama, South Sudan and Togo. These countries are not significant players in UN. All the leading members of the Global South including BRICS and SCO voted in favour of the resolution. USA and Israel, as usual, voted against the resolution. The Indian abstention from voting in such a critical situation when Israel is in its most aggressive form even without listening to the U.S. President Donald Trump, has triggered a big distrust among the leading members of the developing countries as also the two big powers Russia and China. The next summit of BRICS will be taking place in July this year in Brazil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending that. Israel's action including its attacks against Iran on June 13 will also be on the agenda. How Can Indian Prime Minister face the other members of the BRICS at the summit on the issue of Israel and Gaza? In the explanation of vote on the resolution titled 'Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations', India's permanent representative to the UN, ambassador Parvathaneni Harish said the resolution comes against the backdrop of worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.. He then said India is deeply concerned at the deepening humanitarian crisis and condemns the loss of civilian lives but a joint effort should be directed towards bringing the two sides closer. So, India would abstain from the resolution. What an argument under the new normal Modi doctrine? Everyone knows what is the latest attitude of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to any bilateral talks? The immediate need is to save the lives of Gaza people and organize humanitarian aid for sick and hungry. The ceasefire is imperative for that. 149 countries out of the total of 193 members supported the resolution on the basis of this understanding. They wanted to stop the killings with immediate effect. The resolution demanded that Israel, the 'occupying power', immediately end the blockade, open all border crossings and ensure that aid reaches the Palestinian civilian population throughout the Gaza Strip immediately and at scale, in line with its obligations under peace international law and humanitarian principles. It seems that the Narendra Modi government has objection to the term 'occupying power' given to Israel. Even France, Britain are agreeing to this resolution, why not India? The resolution demanded that the parties fully, unconditionally and without delay implement all the provisions of Security Council resolution of June 2024, including an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, the return of the remains of hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighbourhoods in the Gaza Strip and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. The UNGA vote came after the 15-nation Security Council failed to adopt a similar resolution last week after the sole veto by permanent member the United States. For the active members like South Africa and Brazil, there was no other way but to organize a fresh resolution for voting in the UN general assembly where the resolution is decided by voting and no veto power is allowed. On Thursday, the draft resolution was moved by Spain which is a member of the European Union. Prime Minister Sanchez belongs to the socialist part of the coalition and Deputy Prime Minister is Yolanda Diaz, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of Spain.. Spain could organize most members of the European Union in favour of the Resolution. The latest Israeli attack on Iran on Friday and the possibility of the war spreading with serious implications for the Middle East as also global peace poses another challenge to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The PM has cultivated special relations with Israel while Iran is very crucial from India's geopolitical strategy. It will be another big challenge to PM's diplomatic acumen. (IPA Service)
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Iran says Israel's actions a 'declaration of war' and accuses US of supporting strikes
Iran 's envoy to the UN accused the US on Friday of providing full political and intelligence support to Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the attacks a 'declaration of war' that killed dozens, including civilians. Iranian ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani told the UN Security Council that 78 people had been killed in the strikes, with more than 320 others injured. 'The majority of them are civilians, including women and children,' he said. 'We will not forget that our people lost their lives as a result of the Israeli attacks with American weapons. These actions amount to a declaration of war.' He accused Israel of seeking to derail nuclear deal negotiations with the US and escalate tension in the region. 'This aggression was intentional, co-ordinated and fully backed by a permanent member of this council,' he said. 'The United States' complicity in this terrorist attack is beyond doubt." Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon echoed this, saying the strikes on Iran are an act of "national preservation' which it undertook alone. 'Imagine when the head of the snake would do with a nuclear warhead?' he said. 'We acted because history has taught us that silence is complicity and hesitation is fatal.' He told the council that Israeli intelligence had confirmed that Iran could have produced enough fissile material for several nuclear bombs within days. 'We struck the core of the nuclear programme, the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz. This facility was operating at a military grade capacity. Intelligence confirmed that within days, Iran could have produced enough material for multiple bombs,' he said. On Thursday, Iran was censured by the UN's nuclear watchdog for not complying with obligations meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. US senior State Department official McCoy Pitt told the council that Washington was informed in advance of Israel's strikes on Iranian targets but was not militarily involved. Mr Pitt said Israel had advised the US that 'this action' was necessary for its self-defence. 'Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself, and Israel is no exception,' he said. 'President [Donald] Trump has repeatedly said, this dangerous regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.' He added that Washington continues to pursue a diplomatic solution aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons or 'threatening' regional stability. 'Iran's leadership would be wise to negotiate at this time,' he asserted. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog told the Security Council that the aboveground section of Iran's pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz where uranium was being enriched up to 60 per cent has been destroyed in recent Israeli strikes. 'This facility houses both the main fuel enrichment plant and the pilot enrichment plant,' said International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Grossi. Mr Grossi said radiation levels at the Natanz site remained unchanged, with no external radiological impact on the population or the environment. However, he warned of contamination risks within the facility. 'There is radiological and chemical contamination inside the Natanz facilities due to the impacts,' he said. Mr Grossi also said that Iranian authorities informed them of attacks on two other nuclear facilities, Fordow and Isfahan, 'where a fuel plate fabrication plant, a fuel manufacturing plant, a uranium conversion facility … are located'. Russia strongly condemned Israel's attacks on Iran, with its ambassador saying the "military adventure pushes the region to the brink of a large-scale war, and the responsibility for all of the consequences of these actions lies fully with the Israeli leadership and those who encourage them". 'One is left with the impression that the leadership of Israel is convinced that they have a completely free hand in the region, and they probably think that Israel can flout any legal norms and replace all international bodies, including the Security Council and IAEA,' Vasily Nebenzya said. China's ambassador Fu Cong urged Israel to immediately cease all military 'adventurism' and called on countries with 'significant' influence over Israel to play a 'constructive' role.
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: US quietly sent hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before Iran attack
The US quietly delivered hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before its unprecedented attack on Iran on Friday, Middle East Eye can reveal. The US sent around 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel on Tuesday in a large-scale stock-up of supplies before its attack, and as the Trump administration was saying it was ready to continue engaging Iran in nuclear talks. The transfer of such a large quantity of Hellfires suggests that the Trump administration was well-informed of Israel's plans to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, two US officials told MEE on the condition of anonymity. The US's delivery of Hellfires or other large quantities of weapons in the lead up to Friday's attack has not been previously reported. The US military helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed towards Israel, two US officials told Reuters on Friday. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Hellfires are laser-guided air-to-ground missiles. They would not be useful for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but for precision strikes. Israel's military used more than 100 aircraft in its attack on Friday, which used precision tracking to target senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and command centres. 'There is a time and place for Hellfires. They were useful to Israel,' one senior US defence official told MEE. Israel killed scores of senior Iranian officials and nuclear scientists on Friday. Whether with a green light or grudging acceptance, Trump enters war with Iran Read More » The dead include: the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami; Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; and Ali Shamkhani, a close aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration knew about Israel's attack plans for months. MEE revealed earlier this month that the CIA was briefed in April and May on Israeli plans to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Target Systems Analysis and battle plan for cyberattacks combined with precision strikes without any direct US involvement 'impressed' the administration. But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes. Axios reported on Friday, citing two Israeli officials, that the Trump administration was only 'pretending' to resist Israel's attack plans, but privately did not resist them. Trump has since framed his approach as saying that he gave Iran a 60-day window to agree to a new nuclear agreement with his administration before launching strikes. Israeli media reported the 60-day deadline in March 2025. The Trump administration began talks with Iran on 12 April 2025, and the Israeli attack took place exactly 61 days later. The talks in recent weeks hit a wall over the US's insistence that Iran agree not to enrich any uranium, while Tehran said that preserving its right to a low level of enrichment was a red line. Throughout the negotiations, the Trump administration continued a steady supply of arms and weapons to Israel in recent months, two US officials told MEE. The US did not have to provide public notification of the transfer because it was already approved as part of a $7.4bn arms deal that included bombs, missiles, and related equipment that Congress was notified of in February 2025.
