Civil society
organizations (CSOs) increasingly face legal repression by governments seeking
to suppress dissent, yet domestic legal remedies and human rights protections
are often inaccessible or ineffective. In exceptional circumstances, CSOs may
be compelled to invoke investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to safeguard
personnel, assets, and operations. This article balances the critiques of ISDS,
often from CSOs, regarding investor privilege, opacity, and interpretive
flexibility that can undermine public-interest objectives, while also
recognizing procedural protections that can offer a neutral forum for due
process.(See Lise Johnson, Lisa Sachs & Ella Merrill, Investor-State
Dispute Prevention: A Critical Reflection, 75 CCSI Columbia Univ. (2021), https://ccsi.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/
Dispute%20Resolution%20Journal%20-%20Johnson%20et%20al.%20-%20Investor-State%
20Dispute%20Prevention%20[16689].pdf (last visited 16 September 2025).) This
article analyses the narrow, responsible claims CSOs might pursue, including
indirect expropriation, fair and equitable treatment (FET), and denial of
justice, and proposes a harm-reduction framework emphasizing procedural
safeguards, transparency, strategic advocacy, and avoidance of harmful
precedents. The framework is intended to help CSOs skeptical of ISDS evaluate
whether it may offer procedural protection without implying general
endorsement.