This book addresses the interactions between the domestic courts and the international investment arbitral tribunals, one of the most pressing issues confronting both domestic legal systems and the international legal system. It deals with the core issues inherent in the above interactions, especially with regard to countries outside the ICSID system. It contrasts this narrative with the position under classical international investment law, where national courts are assigned a very specific and minimalistic role in the process of investment disputes settlement. For this purpose, the book chooses India, which follows the non-ICSID model, as the major point of focus and considers both domestic judicial decisions and investment arbitral decisions for critical analysis. The ICSID Convention grants limited powers to domestic courts to issue provisional measures and to enforce ICSID awards. As the central theme of the book lies at the intersection of domestic law and international law, the work is indispensable for any scholar working in the areas of general international law, international investment law, international economic law, law and economics, international dispute settlement, or international law in domestic courts, as well as domestic judges and international arbitrators. Further, as the subject matter has great implications for both domestic and global governance, it will benefit civil servants, opinion leaders, policy planners and subject experts in economics, the political economy and regional studies, to name a few. Excerpt from the Foreword: “One of the great merits of this book is that... It looks at bilateral investment treaties themselves to probe more deeply into the role of national courts in investment arbitration... This masterful book fills a major void as a resource in Indian international arbitration law. But is also the prototype of what any serious inquiry into the judicial role in investor-State arbitration in any jurisdiction should look like...” - George A. Bermann, Walter Gellhorn Professor of Law and Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law, Columbia Law School, USA

This open access book examines the multiple intersections between national and international courts in the field of investment protection, and suggests possible modes for regulating future jurisdictional interactions between domestic courts and international tribunals. The current system of foreign investment protection consists of more than 3,000 international investment agreements (IIAs), most of which provide for investment arbitration as the forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host States. However, national courts also have jurisdiction over certain matters involving cross-border investments. International investment tribunals and national courts thus interact in a number of ways, which range from harmonious co-existence to reinforcing complementation, reciprocal supervision and, occasionally, competition and discord. The book maps this complex relationship between dispute settlement bodies in the current investment treaty context and assesses the potential role of domestic courts in future treaty frameworks that could emerge from the States current efforts to reform the system. The book concludes that, in certain areas of interaction between domestic courts and international investment tribunals, the "division of labor" between the two bodies is not always optimal, producing inefficiencies that burden the system as a whole. In these areas, there is a need for improvement by introducing a more fruitful allocation of tasks between domestic and international courts and tribunals - whatever form(s) the international mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes may take. Given its scope, the book contributes not only to legal analysis, but also to the policy reflections that are needed for ongoing efforts to reform investor-State dispute settlement.

This overview illustrates that there is a gap in our knowledge of how domestic courts handle investor-state disputes. As it turns out, some foreign investors use the domestic courts of the host State prior to initiating investment treaty arbitration. Subject matter-wise these cases are very diverse and not all of them are initiated by investors against the host State. Moreover, in the four countries analysed investors often appealed to the highest courts of the land, but they lost more cases than they won. These findings should help UNCITRAL Working Group III conceptualize the meaning of 'investor-state dispute' and the relationship between domestic and international methods of ISDS. It concludes by inviting further empirical research to understand how domestic courts handle investor-state disputes. This in turn can help us develop normative arguments as to why domestic courts should be included in the reform process.

This open access book examines the multiple intersections between national and international courts in the field of investment protection, and suggests possible modes for regulating future jurisdictional interactions between domestic courts and international tribunals. The current system of foreign investment protection consists of more than 3,000 international investment agreements (IIAs), most of which provide for investment arbitration as the forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host States. However, national courts also have jurisdiction over certain matters involving cross-border investments. International investment tribunals and national courts thus interact in a number of ways, which range from harmonious co-existence to reinforcing complementation, reciprocal supervision and, occasionally, competition and discord. The book maps this complex relationship between dispute settlement bodies in the current investment treaty context and assesses the potential role of domestic courts in future treaty frameworks that could emerge from the States’ current efforts to reform the system.The book concludes that, in certain areas of interaction between domestic courts and international investment tribunals, the “division of labor” between the two bodies is not always optimal, producing inefficiencies that burden the system as a whole. In these areas, there is a need for improvement by introducing a more fruitful allocation of tasks between domestic and international courts and tribunals – whatever form(s) the international mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes may take.Given its scope, the book contributes not only to legal analysis, but also to the policy reflections that are needed for ongoing efforts to reform investor-State dispute settlement.

Disputes arising from foreign investment activities are on the increase, and with them a growing awareness among practitioners of a greater variety of settlement methods than most legal analyses have dealt with heretofore. With the experience gained in recent years from a broad spectrum of successful negotiation, arbitration, and litigation techniques, it is possible to derive a comprehensive, critical survey of the principal methods of settling foreign investment disputes. This outstanding book masterfully provides such a survey. The Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes in International Law treats the subject systematically, dealing first with the internal balances within modern foreign investment contracts, the complexities that arise due to state participation or interference in these contracts, and the stances that are taken when disputes arise. It goes on to examine, in turn, the main issues involved in negotiation, arbitration, and judicial settlement as the methods of settling foreign investment disputes, discussing the controversial themes in each of these methods in detail. Recognizing that the focus of attention is shifting to the misconduct of multinational corporations, the last chapter contains a discussion of the role of domestic courts.

In Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, editors Jean E. Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret offer for the first time a broad compendium of practical suggestions for reform of the current system of resolving international investment treaty disputes. The increase in cases against States and their challenge to public policy measures has generated a strong debate, usually framed by complaints about a perceived lack of legitimacy, consistency and predictability. While some ideas have been proposed for improvement, there has never before been a book systematically focusing on constructive paths forward. This volume features 38 chapters by almost 50 leading contributors, all offering concrete proposals to improve the ISDS system for the 21st century.

Edited by Shaheeza Lalani and Rodrigo Polanco Lazo, The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration is a collection of contributions from lawyers, arbitrators and political scientists on the development of the concept of the “State” in a field that currently presents an increasing number of controversial disputes: Investor-State Arbitration. The book analyzes the limits of the host State as a regulator, studying issues such as attribution and the role of State-Owned Enterprises and sub-State entities; the changing role of the home State in Investor-State disputes, including its direct participation in Investor-State arbitration and State to State dispute settlement; and the overall role that both home and host States can play in the improvement of Investor-State Dispute Settlement.