Treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is attracting increasing public debate. Particular concerns involve treaty provisions allowing investors from the home state to initiate arbitration claims directly against the host state for allegedly violating substantive rights (eg relating to expropriation) guaranteed by regional and bilateral investment treaties or free trade agreements.Some commentators and a few countries now favour abandoning such protections altogether, leaving foreign investors to the vicissitudes of domestic law and court procedures in the host state, or of any inter-state process under customary international law or as agreed in investment treaties. Others suggest that treaty practice and international arbitrators' rulings are adequate, so no change is needed to this system. A third group seeks a middle way, proposing various procedural and substantive law reforms to re-balance private versus public interests involved in promoting and protecting cross-border investment.This paper is based on an Open Letter derived from an online form publicised among those familiar with such international investment law issues. Almost all favoured the middle way, with considerable agreement on several possible reforms. These insights should prove useful in framing the ongoing debate, negotiations over new investment treaties, and perhaps even investor-state arbitration proceedings relating to existing treaties.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a provision in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and other international investment agreements that allows investors to enter arbitration with states over treaty breaches. ISDS has become controversial in the United States and our negotiating partners; critics, including some governments, have argued that ISDS is unnecessary, while others insist it is illegitimate as public policy. Treaty-based investment protection represents a major advance in the fair treatment of aliens and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Given the alternatives, withdrawing from investment treaties—the logical conclusion of the critics’ position—would likely have negative consequences for economic growth and the rule of law. This report is an empirical review of ISDS, based on the record of disputes under existing investment treaties.

The reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a subject of ongoing debate in international institutions, yet an ASEAN perspective on the subject has been largely absent to date. This book addresses that gap by presenting, analysing and assessing ISDS reform from an ASEAN perspective, taking into account the experience, needs and concerns of ASEAN as a community and of its member states.

Academic Paper from the year 2022 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 19/20, Leuven Catholic University, language: English, abstract: After a long journey, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) finally opened to an external system of judicial review. Indeed, despite the CJEU's historically notorious lack of openness towards an Investment Court System (ICS), a positive attitude was expressed in the opinion (C-1/17). This new attitude assumes a high degree of relevance in the discussions for a reform of the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS), whose recursive criticalities will be by this paper investigated. In relation to the latter, the effectiveness of the proposed reforms will be analysed to contribute to the discernment as to which of the reform alternatives would be most effective. The analysis that will be carried out will begin by illuminating points of conflict with the interests involved in the current system. Consequently, the reforms proposed and currently being negotiated to resolve these issues will be analysed in order to (i) verify the manner in which they propose to offer a solution to the aforementioned criticalities; and (ii) assess which of the reform alternatives is best suited in terms of effectiveness and associated risks both in terms of coordination with the existing system and scope innovativeness. In framing the reform framework under negotiation, the analysis will devote particular attention to the debate on the most suitable of the alternatives between (i) the creation of a stand-alone court of appeal and (ii) the creation of a two-tier 'multilateral investment court' (MIC).

The Selection and Removal of Arbitrators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement explores and assesses two essential features in investor state dispute resolution (ISDS): the selection and the removal of arbitrators. Both topics have received increasing scrutiny and criticism, that have in turn generated calls for reforms In its first part, the book explains the selection of arbitrators procedurally and comparatively under the most-often used arbitration rules.

Based on an interdisciplinary and cross-institutional research project (2014-7) assessing international investment treaty dispute management more broadly, this paper (abridged from a related project) introduces part of our joint project examining key questions around the effect of investment treaties and some of their provisions on direct investment flows. It focuses on the vexed question of whether offering treaty-based Investor-State Dispute Settlement ('ISDS') leads to significant increases in inbound foreign direct investment (FDI), in light of the persistent public debate about the merits of this procedural option for enforcing substantive commitments made by host states. Overall, our econometric analysis generates complex implications for policy-makers reassessing the historical impact of ISDS in order to decide whether and how to include different forms of such procedural provisions in future investment treaties. Skeptics can point to counter-intuitive results indicating that weaker-form ISDS and/or substantive provisions seem to have stronger and more robust impact, especially since the turn of this century. Proponents can point to results indicating that there has still been a positive and significant impact from stronger provisions, including from full-scale ISDS provisions in promptly ratified treaties concluded between OECD and non-OECD countries. Although our baseline model specification has generally dealt effectively with the endogeneity problem characteristic of this field, further variables impacting on FDI may be investigated (notably, double tax treaties) and data limitations remain (notably, FDI outflows from non-OECD countries and sectoral-level data). This econometric analysis can therefore be usefully complemented by the qualitative research component of our ongoing project.

At the nexus between international investment law, climate law, and human rights law, States’ obligations to protect foreign investments clash with their right – or even their duty – to regulate to protect the planet and people. State efforts at climate change mitigation and adaptation have already triggered claims of liability under the investor-protection provisions of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. In this comprehensive elaboration on the topic, stellar experts and practitioners describe different types of climate-related investment disputes, provide a thorough analysis of the unique procedural issues that emerge in such disputes, and evaluate the proper balance between States’ right to regulate to fight climate change and their obligations towards foreign investors. Each of the book’s contributions offers a penetrating perspective on this complex matter, touching on such aspects as the following: investment disputes arising from States’ climate measures or actions; whether and how states can file counterclaims against investors in such disputes; the appropriate role for climate science at various stages of arbitration; how to assess damages in cases involving fossil assets left stranded by the climate transition; and whether, on balance, existing international investment law supports or hinders the global energy transition. Along the way, arbitrators and other practitioners will gain insight into how to argue, defend, and assess climate-related investment disputes, using not only investment-treaty case law but also international climate agreements, human rights law, and environmental law. Policymakers are shown ways to design and implement climate policy and investment treaties in order to avoid claims by foreign investors. For policymakers, treaty and contract negotiators, dispute resolution lawyers, and international organizations, no other resource provides such incisive discussion of how to balance treaty-based investment protection against states’ inherent duty to regulate in the public interest.