Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- 8 A Future Without (Treaty-Based) ISDS: Costs and Benefits
- 9 Investment Dispute Settlement à la carte: A Proposal for the Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement
- 10 Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
9 - Investment Dispute Settlement à la carte: A Proposal for the Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement
from Part II - Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2021
Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- 8 A Future Without (Treaty-Based) ISDS: Costs and Benefits
- 9 Investment Dispute Settlement à la carte: A Proposal for the Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement
- 10 Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
Summary
There is widespread consensus that investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) is in need of reform. In late 2018, Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), tasked with considering investor–state dispute settlement reform, agreed by consensus that reforming the current system of investor–state arbitration was “desirable” in order to address concerns relating to: (1) consistency, coherence, predictability, and correctness of arbitral rulings; (2) independence, impartiality, and diversity of decision-makers; and (3) costs and duration of proceedings (UNCITRAL 2018). Since then, delegations at UNCITRAL have started looking at potential solutions in order to address the concerns identified (Sachetim and Codeço 2019; UNCITRAL 2019a).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Economic Dispute SettlementDemise or Transformation?, pp. 220 - 263Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Álvarez Zárate, J. M. 2018. “Legitimacy Concerns of the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court: Is Democracy Possible?” Boston College Law Review 59: 2765–90.Google Scholar
Antonietti, A. 2006. “The 2006 Amendments to the ICSID Rules and Regulations and the Additional Facility Rules,” ICSID Review FILJ 21: 427–48.Google Scholar
Boyle, A. 1997. “Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction,” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46: 37–54.Google Scholar
Brower, C. and Schill, S. 2009. “Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?” Chicago Journal of International Law 9: 471–98.Google Scholar
Bungenberg, M. and Reinisch, A. 2018. From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to a Multilateral Investment Court, London: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Calamita, N. Jansen 2017. “The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 18: 585–627.Google Scholar
Chen, H. 2018. “China’s Innovative ISDS Mechanisms and Their Implications,” AJIL Unbound 112: 207–11.Google Scholar
EU 2018. Council of the European Union, “Negotiating Directives for a Convention Establishing a Multilateral Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes,” EU Doc. No. 12981/17 ADD 1.Google Scholar
De Mestral, A. (Ed.) 2017. Second Thoughts – Investor–State Arbitration Between Developed Democracies, Waterloo: Centre for International Governance Innovation.Google Scholar
De Mestral, A. and Lévesque, C. (Eds.) 2012. Improving International Investment Agreements, Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dolzer, R. and Schreuer, C. 2012. Principles of International Investment Law (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, P. and Olivet, C. 2012. Profiting from Injustice – How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom, Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory and Transnational Institute.Google Scholar
Echandi, R. and Sauvé, P. (Eds.) 2013. Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fach Gómez, K. 2018. “Diversity and the Principle of Independence and Impartiality in the Future Multilateral Investment Court,” The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribuna/s 17: 78–97.Google Scholar
Hanessian, G. and Duggal, K. 2017. “The Final 2015 Indian Model BIT: Is This the Change the World Wishes to See?” ICSID Review 32: 216–26.Google Scholar
Hindelang, S. and Krajewski, M. (Eds.) 2016. Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) 2017. ‘EU–Japan EPA Negotiations Finalized Without Investment; EU–Mexico Updated FTA Nears Completion,” www.iisd.org/itn/2017/12/21/eu-japan-epa-negotiations-finalized-without-investment-eu-mexico-updated-fta-nears-completion/. Accessed on 27 January 2020.Google Scholar
Kalicki, J. and Joubin-Bret, A. (Eds.) 2015. Reshaping the Investor–State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, G. and Potestà, M. 2016. Can the Mauritius Convention Serve as a Model for the Reform of investor–state Arbitration in Connection with the Introduction of a Permanent Investment Tribunal or an Appeal Mechanism? Analysis and Roadmap. Geneva: CIDS-Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement.Google Scholar
Kulick, A. (Ed.) 2016. Reassertion of Control over the Investment Treaty Regime, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langford, M., Behn, D. and Usynin, M. 2018. “Does Nationality Matter? Arbitral Background and the Universality of International Investment Regime,” ESIL Conference, Manchester, September 2018, https://www.jus.uio.no/ior/english/people/aca/malcolml/paper–––does-nationality-matter–––esil-2018-%2820-august%29.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2021.Google Scholar
Leikin, E., Gadodia, S. and Loudon, C. 2018. “The State Doesn’t Strike Back After All: India’s Final Model BIT Takes the Bite Out of Investor Obligations and Eliminates State Counterclaims,” Transnational Dispute Management 15:2.Google Scholar
Miles, K. 2013. The Origins of International Investment Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ning, H. and Qi, T. 2018. “Multilateral Investment Court: The Gap Between the EU and China,” Chinese Journal of Global Governance 4: 154–75.Google Scholar
Polanco, R. 2019. The Return of the Home State to Investor–State Disputes – Bringing Back Diplomatic Protection? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Puig, S. 2014. “Social Capital in the Arbitration Market,” European Journal of International Law 25: 387–424.Google Scholar
Puig, S. and Shaffer, G. 2018. “Imperfect Alternatives: Institutional Choice and the Reform of Investment Law,” American Journal of International Law 112: 361–409.Google Scholar
Rajput, A. 2017. Protection of Foreign Investment in India and Investment Treaty Arbitration, Alphen aan de Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ranjan, P. 2019. India and Bilateral Investment Treaties: Refusal, Acceptance, Backlash, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ranjan, P. and Anand, P. 2017. “The 2016 Model Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty: A Critical Deconstruction,” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 8: 1–54.Google Scholar
Reinisch, A. 2016. “Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards – The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration,” Journal of International Economic Law 19: 761–86.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. 2018. “Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor–State Arbitration,” American Journal of International Law 112: 410–32.Google Scholar
Sachetim, H. and Codeço, R. 2019. “The Investor–State Dispute Settlement System Amidst Crisis, Collapse, and Reform,” Arbitration Brief 6: 20–59.Google Scholar
Sauvant, K. and Ortino, F. 2013. Improving the International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Options for the Future, Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.Google Scholar
Sauvant, P. 2016. “The Evolving International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Ways Forward” E15 Task Force on Investment Policy – Policy Options Paper, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
Schill, S. 2009. The Multilateralization of International Investment Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schill, S. 2017. “Reforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement: A (Comparative and International) Constitutional Law Framework,” Journal of International Economic Law 20: 649–72.Google Scholar
Schill, S. 2019. “From Investor–State Dispute Settlement to a Multilateral Investment Court? Evaluating Options from an EU Law Perspective,” In European Parliament (Ed.), EU Investment Protection After the ECJ Opinion on Singapore: Question of Competence and Coherence. Brussels: European Union, www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EXPO_STU(2019)603476. Accessed 28 January 2020.Google Scholar
Schill, S. and Vidigal, G. 2019. “Designing Investment Dispute Settlement à la Carte: Insights from Comparative Institutional Design Analysis,” The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 18: 311–44.Google Scholar
Schill, S. and Briese, R. 2009. “If the State Considers: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement,” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 13: 61–140.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, D. 2008. Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schreuer, C. 2008. “Preliminary Rulings in Investment Arbitration,” In Sauvant, K. (Ed.), Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sornarajah, M. 2015. Resistance and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
St John, T. 2020. The Rise of Investor-State Arbitration: Politics, Law, and Unintended Consequences and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tienhaara, K. 2009. The Expropriation of Environmental Governance: Protecting Foreign Investors at the Expense of Public Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Titi, C. 2018. “The Evolution of Substantive Investment Protections in Recent Trade and Investment Treaties,” RTA Exchange, Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and the Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2018, “Report of Working Group III (Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the Work of Its Thirty-Sixth Session,” UN Doc. No. A/CN.9/964, 6 November 2018,Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2019a. “Possible Reform of Investor–state Dispute Settlement (ISDS), Note by the Secretariat,” UN Doc. No. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166 and A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166/Add.1, 30 July 2019.Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2019b, “Possible Reform of Investor–state Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – Submission from the Government of Brazil,” UN Doc. No. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.171, 11 June 2019.Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2019c, “Possible Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – Submission from the Government of China,” UN Doc. No. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.177, 19 July 2019.Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2019d. “Submission of the European Union and Its Member States to UNCITRAL Working Group III,” http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/157631.htm. Accessed 5 March 2019 (reproduced in UNCITRAL, UN Doc. No. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1, 24 January 2019.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2019. “World Investment Report 2019 – Special Economic Zones” (United Nations).Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2007. Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2010. “Public Statement on the International Investment Regime,” 31 August, www.osgoode.yorku.ca/public-statement-international-investment-regime-31-august-2010/. Accessed 27 January 2020.Google Scholar
Vidigal, G. and Stevens, B. 2018. “Brazil’s New Model of Dispute Settlement for Investment: Return to the Past or Alternative for the Future?” Journal of World Investment & Trade 19: 475–512.Google Scholar
Waibel, M. et al. (eds.) 2010. The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality, Alphen aan de Rijn: Wolters Kluwer International.Google Scholar
Wong, J. and Yackee, J. 2010. “The 2006 Procedural and Transparency-Related Amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules: Model Intentions, Moderate Proposals, and Modest Returns,” In Sauvant, K. (Ed.), The Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2009-2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–74.Google Scholar
Yee, S. 2018. “Dispute Settlement on the Belt and Road: Ideas on System, Spirit and Style,” Chinese Journal of International Law 17: 907–14.Google Scholar