Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- 8 A Future Without (Treaty-Based) ISDS: Costs and Benefits
- 9 Investment Dispute Settlement à la carte: A Proposal for the Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement
- 10 Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
10 - Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration
from Part II - Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2021
Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- 8 A Future Without (Treaty-Based) ISDS: Costs and Benefits
- 9 Investment Dispute Settlement à la carte: A Proposal for the Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement
- 10 Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
Summary
As a diffuse, sprawling, relatively opaque and increasingly polarized legal order, the international investment regime, with its thousands of largely bilateral investment treaties, ad hoc system of adjudication – called investor–state arbitration or investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) – and a decades-long legitimacy crisis and backlash against its practice make it a challenging phenomenon to accurately describe and assess. It also makes the identification and prioritization of its most problematic and reform-worthy areas of concern difficult to pin down. Without empirical data, the international investment regime has been, and to some degree continues to be, very susceptible to heuristics based on limited information, anecdote, and surface-level policy prescription.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Economic Dispute SettlementDemise or Transformation?, pp. 264 - 294Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Alschner, W., Pauwelyn, J. and Puig, S. 2017. “The Data-Driven Future of International Economic Law,” Journal of International Economic Law 20(2): 217–31.Google Scholar
Arato, J., Brown, C. and Ortino, F. 2020. “Parsing and Managing Inconsistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 21(2–3): 336–73.Google Scholar
Arcuri, A. and Violi, F. 2019. “Human Rights and Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Changing (Almost) Everything, so that Everything Stays the Same?” Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale 3: 579–96.Google Scholar
Behn, D. 2018. “Performance of Investment Treaty Arbitration.” In Squatrito, T., et al (Eds.) The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behn, D., Berge, T. and Langford, M. 2018. “Poor States or Poor Governance? Explaining Outcomes in Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 38(3): 333–89.Google Scholar
Behn, D., Fauchald, O.K. and Langford, M. 2021a. (Eds.) The Legitimacy of Investment Arbitration: Empirical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Behn, D., Fauchald, O.K. and Langford, M. 2021b. “Private or Public Good? An Empirical Perspective on Investment Arbitration.” In Iovane, M., et al (Eds.) The Protection of General Interests in Contemporary International Law: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Behn, D., Langford, M., and Létourneau-Tremblay, L. 2020. “Empirical Perspectives on Investment Arbitration: What Do We Know? Does It Matter?” Journal of World Investment & Trade 21(2–3): 188–250.Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Dietrich Brauch, M.. 2017. “Is “Moonlighting” a Problem? The Role of ICJ Judges in ISDS,” IISD Commentary.Google Scholar
Bjorklund, A., et al 2020. “The Diversity Deficit in International Investment Arbitration,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 21(2–3): 410–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brekoulakis, S. 2013. “Systemic Bias and the Institution of International Arbitration: A New Approach to Arbitral Decision-Making,” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 4(3): 553–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buergenthal, T. 2006. “The Proliferation of Disputes, Dispute Settlement Procedures and Respect for the Rule of Law,” Transnational Dispute Management 3(5).Google Scholar
Cleis, M. 2017. The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators: Current Case Law, Alternative Approaches, and Improvement Suggestions. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Commission, J. and Moloo, R. 2018. Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daele, K. 2012. Challenge and Disqualification of Arbitrators in International Arbitration. Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
De Luca, A., Feldman, M., Paparinskis, M. and Titi, C. 2020. “Responding to Incorrect Decision-Making in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Policy Options,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 21(2–3): 374–409.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Y. and Garth, B. 1996. Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dimitropoulos, G. 2018. “Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform and Theory of Institutional Design,” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 9(4): 535–69.Google Scholar
Dupont, C. and Schultz, T. 2013. “Do Hard Economic Times Lead to International Legal Disputes? The Case of Investment Arbitration,” Swiss Political Science Review 19(2): 564–69.Google Scholar
Franck, S. 2007. “Empirically Evaluating Claims About Investment Treaty Arbitration,” North Carolina Law Review 80(1): 1–56.Google Scholar
Franck, S. 2009. “Development and Outcomes of Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Harvard International Law Journal 50(2): 436–87.Google Scholar
Franck, S. 2014. “Conflating Politics and Development: Examining Investment Treaty Outcomes,” Virginia Journal of International Law 55(1): 13–71.Google Scholar
Franck, S. and Wylie, L.. 2015. “Predicting Outcomes in Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Duke Law Journal 65: 459–520.Google Scholar
Franck, S., et al 2017. “Inside the Arbitrator’s Mind,” Emory Law Journal 66: 1116–39.Google Scholar
Friedland, P. and Brekoulakis, S. 2018. “2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration.” Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar
Gáspár-Szilágyi, S. and Létourneau-Tremblay, L. 2020. “Question of Impartiality: Who Are the Dissenting Arbitrators in International Investment Treaty Arbitration?” In Baetens, F. (Ed.) Identity on the Bench: Implications for the Legitimacy of International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giorgetti, C., et al 2020. “Lack of Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators in Investment Dispute Settlement: Assessing Challenges and Reform Options,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 21(2–3): 441–74.Google Scholar
Greenwood, L. and Baker, M. 2015. “Is the Balance Getting Better? An Update on the Issue of Gender Diversity,” Arbitration International 31(3): 413–23.Google Scholar
Greenwood, L. 2017. “Tipping the Balance: Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration,” Arbitration International 33(1): 99–108.Google Scholar
Grossman, N. 2016. “Achieving Sex-Representative International Court Benches,” American Journal of International Law 110(1): 82–95.Google Scholar
Kapeliuk, D. 2010. “Repeat Appointment Factor: Exploring Decision Patterns of Elite Investment Arbitrators,” Cornell Law Review 96: 90–118.Google Scholar
Kidane, W. 2017. The Culture of International Arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kinnear, M., et al (Eds.) 2015. Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID. Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, G. and Potestà, M. 2017. “The Composition of a Multilateral Investment Court and of an Appeal Mechanism for Investment Awards,” CIDS Supplemental Report.Google Scholar
Langford, M., Behn, D. and Lie, R. 2017. “The Revolving Door in International Investment Arbitration,” Journal of International Economic Law 20(2): 301–32.Google Scholar
Langford, M. and Behn, D. 2018. “Managing Backlash: The Evolving Investment Arbitrator?” European Journal of International Law 29(2): 551–80.Google Scholar
Langford, M., Creamer, C. and Behn, D., ‘Regime Responsiveness in International Economic Disputes’, in S. Gáspár-Szilágyi, D. Behn and M. Langford (eds.), Adjudicating Trade and Investment Disputes: Convergence or Divergence? (Cambridge University Press, 2020): 244–284.Google Scholar
Langford, M. 2020. “The Changing Sociology of the Investment Arbitration Market: The Case of Double Hatting,” Paper presented at IELAP Seminar, 27 February, King’s College London, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Langford, M., Potesta, M., Kaufmann-Kohler, G. and Behn, D. 2020. “Special Issue: UNCITRAL and Investment Arbitration Reform: Matching Concerns and Solutions, An Introduction,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 21(2–3): 167–87.Google Scholar
Langford, M., Behn, D. and Usynin, M. 2021. “The West and the Rest: Geographic Diversity and the Role of Arbitrator Nationality in Investment Arbitration.” In Behn, D., Fauchald, O. K. and Langford, M. (Eds.) The Legitimacy of Investment Arbitration: Empirical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, J. 2012. “Dealing with Arbitrator ‘Issue Conflicts’ in International Arbitration,” Dispute Resolution Journal 6: 60–72.Google Scholar
Lie, R. 2021. “The Influence of Law Firms in Investment Arbitration.” In Behn, D., Fauchald, O. K. and Langford, M. (Eds.) The Legitimacy of Investment Arbitration: Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. 2015. “The Rule of Law Without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators Are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators from Venus?” American Journal of International Law 109(4): 761–805.Google Scholar
Puig, S. 2014. “Social Capital in the Arbitration Market,” European Journal of International Law 25(2): 387–424.Google Scholar
Puig, S. 2016. “Blinding International Justice,” Virginia Journal of International Law 56(3): 647–700.Google Scholar
Puig, S. 2019. “Debiasing International Economic Law,” European Journal of International Law 30(4): 1339–57.Google Scholar
Puig, S. and Shaffer, G. 2018. “Imperfect Alternatives: Institutional Choice and the Reform of Investment Law,” American Journal of International Law 112(3): 361–412.Google Scholar
Puig, S. and Strezhnev, A. 2017a. “Affiliation Bias in Arbitration: An Experimental Approach,” Journal of Legal Studies 46(2): 371–92.Google Scholar
Puig, S. and Strezhnev, A. 2017b. “The David Effect and ISDS,” European Journal of International Law 28(3): 731–61.Google Scholar
Puig, S. and Shaffer, G. 2018. “Imperfect Alternatives: Institutional Choice and the Reform of Investment Law,” American Journal of International Law 112(3): 361–409.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. 2018. “Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor–state Arbitration,” American Journal of International Law 112(3): 410–32.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. and St John, T. 2019. “UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Agenda-Widening and Paradigm-Shifting,” 20 September, EJIL: Talk!Google Scholar
Sattorova, M. 2018. The Impact of Investment Treaty Law on Host States: Enabling Good Governance? Cambridge: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. and Dupont, C. 2015. “Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-Empowering Investors? A Quantitative Study,” European Journal of International Law 25(4): 1147–68.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. 2020. “The Ethos of Arbitration.” In Schultz, T. and Ortino, F. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 235–59.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. and Ginsburg, T. 2012. “The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship,” American Journal of International Law 106(1): 1–46.Google Scholar
St John, T., Behn, D., Langford, M., and Lie, R. 2018. “Glass Ceilings and Arbitral Dealings: Gender and Investment Arbitration,” PluriCourts Working Paper.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. and Grisel, F. 2017. The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A., Chung, M. and Saltzman, A. 2017. “Arbitral Lawmaking and State Power: An Empirical Analysis of Investor–State Arbitration,” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 8(4): 608–32.Google Scholar
Strezhnev, A. 2016. “Detecting Bias in International Investment Arbitration,” Paper presented at the 57th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association – Atlanta, Georgia, 16–19 March 2016.Google Scholar
Strezhnev, A. 2017. “Why Rich Countries Win Investment Disputes: Taking Selection Seriously,” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Strezhnev, A. and Puig, S. 2019. “Diversity and Compliance in Investment Arbitration: Future Directions in Empirical Research on Investment Law and Arbitration,” Paper presented at the Oslo LEGINVEST Conference, 31 January 2019.Google Scholar
Tienhaara, K. 2011. “Regulatory Chill and the Threat of Arbitration: A View from Political Science.” In Brown, C. and Miles, K. (Eds.), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 606–27.Google Scholar
Trakman, L. 2007. “The Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators Reconsidered,” International Arbitration Law Review 10: 999.Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2017a. “Report of Working Group III (Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the Work of Its Thirty-Fourth Session (Vienna, 27 November–1 December 2017),” 19 December, UN Doc A/CN.9/930/Rev.1.Google Scholar
UNCITRAL 2017b. “Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Fiftieth Session,” 3–21 July, UN Doc A/72/17.Google Scholar
van den Berg, A. 2010. “Dissenting Opinions by Party-Appointed Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration.” In Arsanjani, M., et al (Eds.), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W Michael Reisman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 821–43.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2012a. “Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 50(1): 211–68.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2012b. “The (Lack of) Women Arbitrators in Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Columbia FDI Perspectives 59.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2016. “Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication (Part Two): An Examination of Hypotheses of Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53(2): 540–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2018. “Leaders in the Expansive and Restrictive Interpretation of Investment Treaties: A Descriptive Study of ISDS Awards to 2010,” European Journal of International Law 29(2): 507–49.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G., Kelsey, J. and Schneiderman, D. 2019. “Phase 2 of the UNCITRAL ISDS Review: Why ‘Other Matters’ Really Matter,” Osgoode Hall Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2.Google Scholar
Waibel, M. and Wu, Y. 2017. “Are Arbitrators Political? Evidence from International Investment Arbitration,” ASIL Research Forum Working Paper.Google Scholar
Wellhausen, R. 2016. “Recent Trends in Investor–state Dispute Settlement,” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 7(1): 117–35.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by