International investment protection: security or plunder?

With regard to the unacceptable demand of he corrupt Brazilian construction company Odebrecht against Peru before ICSID, the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, based in Washington, the global court that addresses the claims of foreign investors, it is important to analyze this investment protection approach that Odebrecht invokes.
Part of the globalization, the reduction of the State and the indiscriminate opening, the protection of the foreign investment was imposed by means of the Free Trade Agreements or Treaties of Protection of Investments, say that if not the investments would not come. Today it has become a true sword of Damocles on the states, mainly, of the underdeveloped nations, which cannot apply their developmentalist policies or of simple defense to the consumer, against the transnationals and even the investment funds themselves, without being sued before ICSID, a body dependent on the World Bank.
In the context of the internal crisis, of the decades lost after the debt crisis and the hyperinflationary processes of the 80s and 90s, our countries became much more dependent on foreign investment; aimed especially at the extractive and service sectors, and for many countries this was the only guarantee of its own economic stability.
But the price is too high. The norms of protection to the foreign investment, destined to protect them of the “expropriations”, have taken a “doctrinal” leap, when considering as an extension of expropriation any measure of the governments that could affect their levels of utilities. For example, Uruguay introduced legislation a few years ago to protect citizens from the effects of tobacco, and because of this the international tobacco company Phillips Morris demanded that country before ICSID.
These demands have increased, with 221 demands from large mining, oil, services, manufacturing and Latin American corporations, 30% of the total cases seen by ICSID in 2017, as explained by a CLACSO video (see here ). Until 2018, Peru had claims before ICSID for US $ 3,000 million (see El Comercio), despite which it has had relative success. Even when?
In the case of Odebrecht, the company failed to comply with the “financial closure” required in its participation in the Gasoducto Sur Peruano project, due to the collapse of its credibility given the Lava Jato case, in Brazil, but as it had advanced to carry metal pipes For the laying of the gas pipeline to the area of ​​future construction, it now asks for the indemination. Another concorciated company, the Spanish company Enagas, previously sued Peru in the same case for more than US $ 1,900 million.
Our countries must modify these treaties to avoid unacceptable abuses.
And you, what do you think?
02/20/20