This open access book considers the potential setup for a future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The option of an MIC was first discussed by the EU Commission in 2016 and has since been made an official element of the EU Common Commercial Policy. In 2017, UNCITRAL also decided to discuss the possibility of an MIC, and on 20 March 2018, the Council of the EU gave the EU Commission the mandate to negotiate the creation of an MIC. The “feasibility study” presented here is intended to contribute to a broader discussion on the options for a new international court specialized in investment protection. The cornerstones of such a new permanent court are a strict orientation on the rule of law, reduced costs of investment protection, transparency considerations, aspects of consistency in case law, and the effective enforceability of MIC decisions.

The EU is aiming for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) to replace the existing investment arbitration system. Based on the current debates in UNCITRAL and other fora this Draft Statute of an MIC demonstrates that it is possible to have a new system of dispute settlement. For the first time, a complete draft agreement is presented for the design of such an MIC as a new international organization, implementing strict rule of law-requirements for dispute settlement. Besides rule of law-considerations, cornerstones are reduced costs, a permanent bench of judges with an appellate system, transparency, more consistency in case law as well as the effective enforceability of MIC decisions.

This special issue focuses on the opportunities and challenges connected with investment courts. The creation of permanent investment courts was first proposed several decades ago, but it has only recently become likely that these proposals will be implemented. In particular, the European Commission has pushed for a court-like mechanism to resolve investment disputes in various recent trade and investment negotiations. Such a framework was included in some free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment protection agreements (IPAs) the European Union (EU) signed or negotiated with Vietnam, Singapore, Mexico and Canada. While it was shelved long before the publication of this Special Issue, the European Commission had also formally proposed a court system during the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States. The issue of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) has also been prevalent at the Working Group III proceedings of the UNCITRAL on investor-State dispute settlement reform, attracting scholarly and public attention.Will these developments lead to the creation of permanent investment courts? How will such courts change the future of international investment law? Will they bring about a real institutional change in adjudicatory mechanisms? Will they introduce a 'hybrid' system, which borrows important characteristics from both arbitration and institutional methods of international adjudication? How will the enforcement mechanisms work, and under which rules of ethics will its adjudicators function and exercise their duties? This special issue brings together leading scholars sharing a common interest in investment courts to address these questions.

This book considers the potential setup for a future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The option of an MIC was first discussed by the EU Commission in 2016 and has since been made an official element of the EU Common Commercial Policy. In 2017, UNCITRAL also decided to discuss the possibility of an MIC, and on 20 March 2018, the Council of the EU gave the EU Commission the mandate to negotiate the creation of an MIC. The “feasibility study” presented here is intended to contribute to a broader discussion on the options for a new international court specialized in investment protection. The cornerstones of such a new permanent court are a strict orientation on the rule of law, reduced costs of investment protection, transparency considerations, aspects of consistency in case law, and the effective enforceability of MIC decisions.

This book deals with the ongoing reform process for investor-state dispute settlement in UNCITRAL Working Group III, in particular the proposal to create a multilateral investment tribunal (MIC). The book covers key elements of the MIC proposal, such as the institutional framework of the court, the design of an appeals mechanism, the use of class-law settlement procedures, and the establishment of an advisory center for developing countries. In addition, the selection and appointment of judges is discussed. It also explores the following questions: How can the MIC be integrated into the existing ISDS system? How can the implementation of its decisions be ensured? Each chapter highlights the legal issues to be discussed and places them in a larger context to offer an understanding of the core questions and how they are related to each other.

For the last years, reforming the international investment law regime has been a key priority of the trade agenda of the European Commission. Two important decisions in March 2018 can either be seen as a stepping stone or stumbling block in this regard.On 20 March 2018, the Council authorised negotiations for a treaty establishing a multilateral investment court (MIC). This proposal was yet the latest step in a series of activities aimed at replacing the traditional arbitration system of dispute settlement in investment treaties (Investor-State Dispute Settlement, ISDS) with a treaty-based MIC. The latest development concerns the multilateralization of the Investment Court System leading to a MIC. After lobbying for this approach in various intergovernmental fora, the Commission developed a more concrete proposal over the course of 2016 and the first half of 2017. Last year, the ISDS debate moved into the auspices of UNCITRAL Working Group III. Neither the negotiation mandate nor the UNCITRAL mandate touch upon substantive investment standards or refer to the current debates and negotiations on business and human rights. The negotiations will therefore not address any substantive elements of investment treaties. In all likelihood, they will also not address procedural issues such as counterclaims, participation rights of affected stakeholders, presumption of responsibility or burden of proof. The second important decision was taken two weeks earlier by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 6 March 2018. In its ruling in the case C-284/16 Achmea, the CJEU clarified that investment agreements between EU Member States (so-called intra-EU BITs) that have an ISDS clause violate EU law. It is not quite clear whether the CJEU would also transfer its view to other agreements such as CETA or the planned treaty for a MIC. However, the ruling indicates that any investment agreement providing for dispute settlement procedures in which EU law can be applied or interpreted and which does not ensure a review of this interpretation by the CJEU is in breach of EU law.

This book deals with the ongoing reform process for investor-state dispute settlement in UNCITRAL Working Group III, in particular the proposal to create a multilateral investment tribunal (MIC). The book covers key elements of the MIC proposal, such as the institutional framework of the court, the design of an appeals mechanism, the use of class-law settlement procedures, and the establishment of an advisory center for developing countries. In addition, the selection and appointment of judges is discussed. It also explores the following questions: How can the MIC be integrated into the existing ISDS system? How can the implementation of its decisions be ensured? Each chapter highlights the legal issues to be discussed and places them in a larger context to offer an understanding of the core questions and how they are related to each other..