The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system comes at crossroad. In context of ISDS reform, the Public-Private Debate surrounding international investment agreements (IIAs) could be specified as a balance between public legitimacy and private efficiency, tempering tensions between fast and fair resolution of investment disputes. From the perspective of fast resolution, party autonomy and cost management of the ISDS system should be retained and refined. From the perspective of fair resolution, ex ante (in-put) legitimacy and ex post (out-put) legitimacy should be enhanced to manage the procedural and substantive deficits, by establishment of state's appointed arbitrator-roster and restricted review of awards by a permanent annulment committee. Therefore, this article proposes a Chinese perspective on Multilateral Investment Dispute Resolution (MIDR) system of balance between public legitimacy management and private efficiency refinement. The institutional structure of MIDR should be of internal balance, moderating three tensions between state and arbitrator, between investor and host state, and between state and arbitral tribunal during ex ante and ex post process of dispute resolution. The process of establishment of MIDR should be of external balance, moderating tensions between procedure and substance of MIDR, between MIDR and existing institutions, and between legal rights of MIDR stakeholders and political will of leading states.

Investor-State disputes are increasing and damage awards are often significant. It is thus no surprise that the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system has come under scrutiny. Perceptions have arisen that ISDS is inconsistent, lacks transparency, and is simply unfair. This book delves into the ongoing worldwide debate and discussions regarding the ISDS system. Drawing contributors from around the world, the authors provide insights on critical topics and address the key question facing the ISDS system and the international community it serves: Should the present ISDS system be reformed, replaced, or simply remain as is? The contributors represent points of view ranging from academia to practice to governmental entities, addressing such topics as: the possible consequences of wholesale replacement or elimination of the current ISDS system; mediation as an alternative to resolve ISDS disputes; the creation of a multinational investment court or appellate review mechanism; lack of an early dismissal mechanism to eliminate meritless claims; issues regarding arbitrators, including their appointment and ethical obligations; how investors may retain their right to pursue claims for violations of investment protection following termination of an agreement; a State’s right to assert a counterclaim against an investor-claimant; the role of ISDS in promoting and protecting renewable energy production; the liability of State-controlled entities; the effects and implications of third-party funding; the duty to mitigate damages in the light of excessive damages awards; and improvements and issues relating to post-award enforcement, duration, and cost of ISDS. This book considers the ongoing deliberations and reform measures proposed by UNCITRAL’s Working Group III and provides insights into how several geographic regions and economic cooperation areas have sought to address the question of reform of the ISDS system, including the European Union, the Middle East, and the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. With its much-needed and deeply informed balancing of investor and State rights and duties, this book will be welcomed by all who practise in the ISDS field, including arbitrators, State governments and non-governmental organizations, regional economic organizations, and international investors.

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.

What makes investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) as dynamic a field as it is – especially in comparison with international commercial arbitration – is its uncanny ability to engage directly with the most topical and pressing issues of the day, including human rights, regulation of the energy sector, and climate change and the environment more generally. This book provides a deep dive into the reality behind the causes and effects of the expressed concerns regarding ISDS and the extent to which they can and have been addressed by ongoing reform processes at national, regional, and international levels. Deeply informed insights from leading scholars and practitioners on the status quo and perspectives of ISDS shed clear light on such aspects as the following: reform instruments adopted at the UNCITRAL Working Group III; issues surrounding the legitimacy of ISDS; dispute prevention and amicable settlement mechanisms; the proposed multilateral investment court; implications of climate change and energy transition for investment policies and disputes; recent regional trends in policymaking and perspectives; the ICSID-UNCITRAL Code of Conduct; investment protection standards and dispute resolution mechanisms in recent international investment treaties; viability of the modernized Energy Charter Treaty; use of artificial intelligence; and participation of civil society organizations. As an in-depth analysis of the most recent developments in international investment law and dispute resolution, this book offers a realistic view of the reform processes, thus underlining the necessary legal and institutional measures that will translate into real-life effects in the future. With its help, policymakers and government officials will identify ongoing trends and anticipate risks that require intervention, while practitioners and the broader dispute resolution community will find valuable information about the evolving contours of investment protection treaties and ISDS. For academics and civil society organizations interested in the developments and implications of ISDS, the book provides factual, nuanced, and effective analysis of the relevant issues.

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).

Investment treaties are some of the most controversial but least understood instruments of global economic governance. Public interest in international investment arbitration is growing and some developed and developing countries are beginning to revisit their investment treaty policies. The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime synthesises and advances the growing literature on this subject by integrating legal, economic, and political perspectives. Based on an analysis of the substantive and procedural rights conferred by investment treaties, it asks four basic questions. What are the costs and benefits of investment treaties for investors, states, and other stakeholders? Why did developed and developing countries sign the treaties? Why should private arbitrators be allowed to review public regulations passed by states? And what is the relationship between the investment treaty regime and the broader regime complex that governs international investment? Through a concise, but comprehensive, analysis, this book fills in some of the many "blind spots" of academics from different disciplines, and is the first port of call for lawyers, investors, policy-makers, and stakeholders trying to make sense of these critical instruments governing investor-state relations.

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.