Founding Attorney
Could the U.S. Reclaiming the Panama Canal Trigger International Legal Battles?
Recent threats by the President of the United States to “take back” control of the Panama Canal have sparked significant international legal concerns. These bold statements have not only created diplomatic tensions but could potentially trigger a wave of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims, involving various bilateral investment treaties (BITs), and broader international legal disputes. This article explores the various implications of such a controversial move.
Historical Context and Construction
The Panama Canal, completed in 1914 under the oversight of President Theodore Roosevelt and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, is a vital waterway connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean through the Isthmus of Panama. Its strategic and economic significance led to the initial establishment of the Panama Canal Zone, an area controlled by the U.S. until the canal’s formal handover to Panama in 1999 under the terms of the treaty of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. However, the U.S. maintained significant influence and control over the canal’s operation until 2016, when Panama assumed full control.
Expropriation, Foreign Direct Investment, and ISDS Claims
If the U.S. acts upon its threats, it may constitute an expropriation under international law, affecting substantial foreign direct investment in infrastructure, ports, and logistics. Such expropriation could prompt corporations holding significant interests—like CK Hutchison Holdings, currently managing key port operations, and investment giants such as BlackRock, which recently acquired significant assets related to the Panama Canal—to file lawsuits via international arbitration tribunals, particularly under treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) successor agreements, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). These disputes would likely be adjudicated under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) arbitration guidelines. These tribunals have the authority to make binding decisions on disputes between investors and foreign governments, including those related to infrastructure projects and port operations.
With multinational corporations’ increasing involvement in global trade and investments, disputes between these companies and host countries have become more frequent. In response, international arbitration has emerged as a popular mechanism for resolving such conflicts. This allows companies to bypass domestic courts and seek resolution through neutral third-party arbitral tribunals.
One notable example is CK Hutchison Holdings, a company managing key port operations worldwide. They have utilized international arbitration under treaties like NAFTA successor agreements, TTIP, and CETA to file lawsuits against foreign governments. This strategy allows them to challenge regulatory decisions or government actions that may negatively impact their business interests.
However, this trend has also sparked criticism and scrutiny. Some argue that international arbitration gives too much power to corporations and undermines the sovereignty of host countries. Critics point out that these tribunals are often dominated by corporate lawyers who may have conflicts of interest.
In recent years, efforts have been made to reform the international arbitration system. The UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) adopted new rules in 2016 to improve transparency and accountability in investor-state arbitrations. These rules require disclosing third-party funding and potential conflicts of interest among arbitral tribunal members.
Additionally, there is a growing push for alternative mechanisms to resolve investment disputes, such as mediation or expert determination. These methods allow for more flexibility and collaborative problem-solving between the parties, rather than a winner-takes-all approach.
Critics of the current arbitration system also argue it favors developed countries and multinational corporations, as they have more resources to bring claims and access to top-tier arbitral tribunal. This can create an unequal playing field for developing countries and smaller businesses.
On the other hand, proponents of international arbitration argue that it provides certainty and efficiency in resolving complex cross-border disputes. They also contend that the involvement of experienced arbitrators with expertise in relevant areas of law allows for fair and impartial decisions.
Despite ongoing efforts to improve transparency and address concerns about fairness, international arbitration remains a controversial topic. It will continue to be a subject of debate among governments, businesses, and legal experts as global trade and investment continue to grow. Ultimately, the success of international arbitration will depend on striking a balance between parties’ interests and ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of disputes. Only then can it truly fulfill its potential as a valuable tool for resolving cross-border conflicts, including in the context of bilateral investment treaty.
Panama’s Legal Recourse through International Courts
International Court of Justice (ICJ) Jurisdiction
Panama could initiate legal action at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, alleging violations of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and treaty obligations. For the ICJ to render a binding judgment, however, the U.S. would need to consent explicitly to the jurisdiction of the court, a consent historically rare from the United States. Nonetheless, Panama could request an advisory opinion through the United Nations General Assembly or seek to rally international diplomatic support within the panama canal zone or seek to rally international diplomatic support within the United Nations Security Council.
World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Resolution
Panama could also invoke the dispute settlement mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO), arguing that U.S. actions violate international trade agreements and disrupt global commerce. An arbitral panel under WTO rules would assess claims regarding breaches of trade obligations and could authorize retaliatory trade measures if violations are confirmed.
Broader Diplomatic, Economic, and Human Rights Implications
A U.S. takeover of the Panama Canal could severely damage diplomatic relations across Latin America, undermining existing policies and potentially fueling social movements advocating for sovereignty and against perceived imperialism. Moreover, disruptions could severely impact global shipping routes, affecting international trade significantly. Major investors like BlackRock, which hold strategic stakes in regional infrastructure, would particularly feel the impact, potentially leading to extensive legal actions and arbitration .
Heightened geopolitical tensions could intensify discussions around issues like climate change, considering the canal’s vulnerability to sea-level rise and international calls for transparency and adherence to global governance standards. International bodies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Commission might advocate for peaceful and lawful dispute resolution to maintain global economic panama canal
Impact on Global Trade and Environmental Concerns
The Panama Canal, including key infrastructure such as the Culebra Cut, Gatun Dam, and Miraflores Locks, is crucial for global maritime navigation and cargo transport, influencing global markets and trade balances. Any conflict could cause severe disruptions, affecting ports and corporations worldwide.
Environmental organizations may raise concerns under environmental law, considering the canal’s importance for ecosystems around the Gatun Lake and Chagres River. International frameworks such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could also weigh in, emphasizing the risks associated with disrupted climate policies and infrastructure resilience and the Panama Canal .
Judicial Independence and Global Legal Precedents
Any resulting arbitral tribunal or international court rulings could set important precedents in international trade law and international investment agreements, impacting future cases and global policy decisions. Issues of judicial independence, national sovereignty, and compliance with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law would be central to international debates.
Detailed Analysis of Claims under the U.S.-Panama Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)
The BIT between the United States and Panama explicitly protects investors against unlawful expropriation (Article III), guarantees fair and equitable treatment (Article II), and ensures national treatment (Article II). Investors could invoke Article III on national treatment violations, Article IV regarding expropriation, and Article VI for the right to transfer investment-related funds freely. These provisions enable investors like BlackRock and CK Hutchison Holdings to assert claims alleging unfair treatment, inadequate compensation, or arbitrary actions inconsistent with international standards outlined in the treaty.
How Transnational Matters PLLC Can Help
At Transnational Matters PLLC, we specialize in providing comprehensive legal support for ISDS claims, expertly representing private investors impacted by expropriation or breaches of international investment agreements. Additionally, our experienced legal team offers dedicated representation for sovereign governments seeking justice at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). With deep expertise in international arbitration, treaty analysis, and advocacy before international tribunals, we stand ready to protect your interests. Contact us today to discuss your case and explore your legal options.