International investment arbitration remains one of the most controversial areas of globalisation and international law. This book provides a fresh contribution to the debate by adopting a thoroughly empirical approach. Based on new datasets and a range of quantitative, qualitative and computational methods, the contributors interrogate claims and counter-claims about the regime's legitimacy. The result is a nuanced picture about many of the critiques lodged against the regime, whether they be bias in arbitral decision-making, close relationships between law firms and arbitrators, absence of arbitral diversity, and excessive compensation. The book comes at a time when several national and international initiatives are under way to reform international investment arbitration. The authors discuss and analyse how the regime can be reformed and ow a process of legitimation might occur.

"This book, the outgrowth of a conference organized by the editors at Harvard Law School on April 19, 2008, aims to uncover the drivers behind the backlash against the current international investment regime."--Library of Congress Online Calalog.

Examines the philosophical foundation of legitimate expectations to create a normative framework for use in investment treaty arbitration

One of the most noted developments in international law over the past twenty years is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. They decide who has the right to exploit natural resources, define the scope of human rights, delimit international boundaries and determine when the use of force is prohibited. As the number and influence of international courts grow, so too do challenges to their legitimacy. This volume provides new interdisciplinary insights into international courts' legitimacy: what drives and undermines the legitimacy of these bodies? How do drivers change depending on the court concerned? What is the link between legitimacy, democracy, effectiveness and justice? Top international experts analyse legitimacy for specific international courts, as well as the links between legitimacy and cross-cutting themes. Failure to understand and respond to legitimacy concerns can endanger both the courts and the law they interpret and apply.

This in-depth commentary analyses the new UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration.

This book critically analyses how arbitration cases, institutional rules and emerging codes of conduct in the international arbitration sector​ have ​dealt with​ a series of​ key​ arbitrator duties to date. In addition, it ​offers a range of feasible and well-grounded proposals regarding ​investment arbitrators’ duties in the future. The following aspects are examined in depth: the duty of disclosure the duty to investigate​ the duty of diligence​ and integrity​, which in turn may be divided into temporal availability, a non-delegation of responsibilities, and adhering to appropriate behaviour​ the duty of confidentiality, and other duties such as monitoring arbitration costs, or continuous training​. Investment arbitration is currently undergoing sweeping changes. The EU proposal to create a Multilateral Investment Court incorporates a number of ground-breaking developments with regard to arbitrators. Whether this new model of permanent “members of the court” will ever become a reality, or whether the classical ex-parte arbitrator system will manage to retain its dominance in the investment arbitration milieu, this book is based on the assumption that there is a current need to re-examine and rethink the main duties of investment arbitrators. Apart from being the first monograph to analyse these​ duties in detail, the book will spark a crucial debate among international scholars and practitioners. It is essential to identify arbitrators’ duties and find consensus on how they should be reshaped in the near future, so that these central figures in investment arbitration can reinforce the legitimacy of a system that is currently in crisis.

Although domestic law plays an important role in investment treaty arbitration, this issue is little discussed or analysed. When should investment treaty tribunals engage with domestic law? How should investment treaty tribunals resolve matters of domestic law? These questions have significant ramifications for both the legitimacy of the investment treaty system and the arbitral mandate of the tribunal members. Drawing on case law, international law principles, and comparative analysis, this book addresses these important issues. Part I of the book examines three areas of investment law-the 'fair and equitable treatment' standard, expropriation, and remedies-in which the role of domestic law has so far been under-appreciated. It argues that tribunals are justified in drawing on domestic law as a relevant factor in their rulings on these three issues. Part II of the book examines how questions of domestic law should be resolved in investment arbitration. It proposes a normative framework for use by tribunals in ascertaining the contents of the domestic law to be applied. It then considers counter-arguments, exemptions, and exceptions to applying this framework, and it evaluates how tribunals have ruled on questions of domestic law to date. Investment treaty arbitration has endured much criticism in recent times, partly over fears of its encroachment on sovereignty. The book ultimately contends that closer attention by tribunals to one of the principal expressions of a state's sovereignty-the elaboration of its domestic law-will reduce criticism of the field.