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
8 - A Future Without (Treaty-Based) ISDS: Costs and Benefits
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
More than 1,000 investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims have been brought to date based on investment treaties, most of them in recent years. Many of the claims have challenged sensitive areas of government regulation, and some have resulted in multi-billion-dollar awards. ISDS has become a posterchild for anti-globalization groups and is increasingly considered problematic by a range of developing country governments. Yet, criticism of ISDS is not always associated with opposition to economic globalization, multinational firms, or to a rules-based international order. The CATO Institute, a prominent libertarian think-tank, is critical of what it sees as a positive discrimination in favour of foreign investors and the German Association of Judges, a stalwart defender of the rule of law, came out against the mechanism in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Right or wrong, ISDS has become one of the most controversial issues in global economic governance.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Economic Dispute SettlementDemise or Transformation?, pp. 191 - 219Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Baumgartner, J. 2017. Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, A. 2013. “Do Trade and Investment Agreements Lead to More FDI? Accounting for Key Provisions inside the Black Box,” International Economics and Economic Policy 10: 247–75.Google Scholar
Bonnitcha, J. 2019. “The Impact of Investment Treaties on Domestic Governance in Myanmar.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3644056.Google Scholar
Bonnitcha, J., Poulsen, L. and Waibel, M. 2017. The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, H.-M. 1986. “Investment Protection Treaties: Recent Trends and Prospects,” Aussenwirtschaft 41(1): 99–104.Google Scholar
The British Chambers of Commerce in China. 2018. “British Business in China: Member Sentiment Survey.” www.britishchamber.cn/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/181217_BC_Sentiment-Survey_WEB.pdf.Google Scholar
Brower, C. H. and Blanchard, S. 2014. “What’s in a Meme? The Truth about Investor-State Arbitration: Why It Need Not, and Must Not, Be Repossessed by States,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 52(3): 689–777.Google Scholar
Calamita, J. 2015. “The Rule of Law, Investment Treaties, and Economic Growth: Mapping Normative and Empirical Questions.” In Jowell, J., Thomas, C. and van Zyl Smit, J. (Eds.), The Importance of the Rule of Law in Promoting Development. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law, pp. 103–28.Google Scholar
Craig, P. 1997. “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework,” Public Law 467–87.Google Scholar
DePalma, A. 2001. ‘NAFTA’s Powerful Little Secret, Obscure Tribunals Settle Disputes, But Go Too Far, Critics Say,” The New York Times, 11 March.Google Scholar
Denza, E. and Poulsen, L. 2020. “The Euro-Arab Investment Treaty That Nearly Was,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 69: 267–99.Google Scholar
Dolzer, R. and Stevens, M. 1995. Bilateral Investment Treaties. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Echandi, R. 2011. “What Do Developing Countries Expect from the International Investment Regime.” In Alvarez, J., Sauvant, K., Ahmed, K. and Vizcaino, G. (Eds.), The Evolving International Investment Regime. New York: Oxford University Press; pp. 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA), 2015, ‘A Response to the Criticism Against ISDS,’ 17 May, Brussels. http://efila.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EFILA_in_response_to_the-criticism_of_ISDS_final_draft.pdf.Google Scholar
Franck, S. D. 2007. “Integrating Investment Treaty Conflict and Dispute Systems Design,” Minnesota Law Review 92(1): 161–230.Google Scholar
Gertz, G. 2014. “Book Review: The Empire Trap: The Rise and Fall of U.S. Intervention to Protect American Property Overseas, 1893–2013 by Noel Maurer,” International Affairs 90(4): 1003–5.Google Scholar
Gertz, G. 2016. “Commercial Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy,” GEG Working Paper 2016/119.Google Scholar
Gertz, G., Jandhyala, S. and Poulsen, L. 2018. “Legalization, Diplomacy, and Development: Do Investment Treaties De-politicize Investment Disputes?” World Development 107: 238–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, T. 2005. “International Substitutes for Domestic Institutions: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Governance,” International Review of Law and Economics 25(1): 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, J., Paparinskis, M., Poulsen, L. and Waibel, M. 2019. “Investment Law before Arbitration,” Working paper (on file).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantor, M. 2014. “Comparing Political Risk Insurance and Investment Treaty Arbitration.” In: Borzu, S., Birch, N., Laird, I. and Rivas, J. (Eds.), Revolution in the International Rule of Law: Essays in honor of Don Wallace, Jr. New York: Juris Publishing, pp. 455–74.Google Scholar
Maurer, N. 2013. The Empire Trap: The Rise and Fall of U.S. Intervention to Protect American Property Overseas, 1893–2013. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
OECD 2019a. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) – Inward FDI Stocks by Partner Country – OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/fdi/inward-fdi-stocks-by-partner-country.htm#indicator-chart.Google Scholar
OECD 2019b. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) – Outward FDI Stocks by Partner Country – OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/fdi/outward-fdi-stocks-by-partner-country.htm#indicator-chart.Google Scholar
OECD 2019c. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) – FDI Stocks – OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/fdi/fdi-stocks.htm#indicator-chart.Google Scholar
OECD 2019d. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) – Outward FDI Flows by Partner Country – OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/fdi/outward-fdi-flows-by-partner-country.htm#indicator-chart.Google Scholar
OECD 2019e. Development Aid at a Glance – Statistics by Region – Asia. Paris: OECD. www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/Asia-Development-Aid-at-a-Glance-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Paparinskis, M. 2012. “The Limits of Depoliticisation in Contemporary Investor–State Arbitration,” Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law (3): 271–82.Google Scholar
Paulsson, J. 2005. “Indirect Expropriation: Is the Right to Regulate at Risk?” 12 December, Paris. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/52/36055332.pdf. Accessed 22 September 2019.Google Scholar
Puig, S. 2013. “Emergence & Dynamism in International Organizations: ICSID, Investor-State Arbitration & International Investment Law,” Georgetown Journal of International Law 44: 531–608.Google Scholar
Polanco, R. 2019. The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. 2010. “The Importance of BITs for Foreign Direct Investment and Political Risk Insurance: Revisiting the Evidence.” In Sauvant, K. (Ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2009/2010, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 539–74.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. 2015. Bounded Rationality and Economic Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. 2020. “Beyond Credible Commitments: (Investment) Treaties as Focal Points,” International Studies Quarterly 64(1): 26–34.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. 2014. “State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority,” Harvard International Law Journal 55(1): 1–70.Google Scholar
Sasse, J. P. 2011. An Economic Analysis of Bilateral Investment Treaties. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
Sattorova, M. 2018. The Impact of Investment Treaty Law on Host States: Enabling Good Governance? Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Schill, S. W. 2009. The Multilateralization of International Investment Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S. W. 2010. “Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law and Comparative Public Law.” In Schill, S. W. (Ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–82.Google Scholar
St John, T. 2018. The Rise of Investor-State Arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salacuse, J. 2007. “Is There a Better Way – Alternative Methods of Treaty-Based, Investor State Dispute Resolution,” Fordham International Law Journal 31: 138–85.Google Scholar
Schwebel, S. 2016. “Introduction.” In Franke, U., Magnusson, A. and Dahquist, J. (Eds.), Arbitrating for Peace: How Arbitration Made a Difference, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Staley, E. 1935. War and the Private Investor: A Study in the Relations of International Politics and International Private Investment. Doubleday, Doran & Co.Google Scholar
Steinitz, M. 2011. “Whose Claim Is This Anyway – Third-Party Litigation Funding,” Minnesota Law Review 95: 1268–338.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. 2010. “Investment Treaty Arbitration, Procedural Fairness, and the Rule of Law.” In Schill, S. W. (Ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. Oxford University Press, pp. 627–57.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. and Malysheuski, P. 2016. “Who Has Benefited Financially from Investment Treaty Arbitration? An Evaluation of the Size and Wealth of Claimants,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No 14/2016.Google Scholar
Vandevelde, K. 2010. Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and Interpretation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wälde, T. 2005. “The ‘Umbrella’ Clause in Investment Arbitration: A Comment on Original Intentions and Recent Cases,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 6(2): 183–236.Google Scholar
Welsh, N. A. and Kupfer Schneider, A. 2013. “The Thoughtful Integration of Mediation into Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration,” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 18: 71–144.Google Scholar
World Bank 2019. Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) 2019 Interactive > Interactive Data Access. https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports.+Interactive+Data+Access.+https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports.>Google Scholar
Xiao, Z. 2021. “The Evolution of the Settlement of Investor-State Disputes in China,” draft PhD thesis, on file.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2008. “Do We Really Need BITs? Toward a Return to Contract in International Investment Law,” Asian Journal of WTO and Health Law 3: 121–46.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2008–9. “Pacta Sunt Servanda and State Promises to Foreign Investors before Bilateral Investment Treaties: Myth and Reality,” Fordham International Law Journal 32(5): 1550–613.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2009. “Do BITs Really Work? Revisiting the Empirical Link between Investment Treaties and Foreign Direct Investment.” In Sauvant, K. and Sachs, L. (Eds.), The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties and Investment Flows. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 379–94.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2011. “Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment? Some Hints from Alternative Evidence,” Virginia Journal of International Law 51(2): 397–441.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2014. “Political Risk and International Investment Law,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 24(3): 477–500.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2019. “Investor-State Dispute Settlement at the Dawn of International Investment Law: France, Mauritania, and the Nationalization of the MIFERMA Iron Ore Operations,” American Journal of Legal History 59(1): 71–110.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. 2021. “Expelling the ‘Sinister Vilgrain’: Nationalization, Diplomacy, and Sugar in the People’s Republic of Congo, 1970–1978,” French Historical Studies 44(1): 119–47.Google Scholar
Živković, V. 2019. “Fair and Equitable Treatment between the International and National Rule of Law,” Journal of World Investment and Trade 20(4): 513–52.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by