January-June 2016
ISSN 2050-005X (Online); 978-1522795582 (ISBN-13); 1522795588 (ISBN-10)
Traditionally, investment disputes between foreign investors and host countries were resolved in the local courts of the host countries.1 However, developed countries tried to protect their foreign investors from discrimination and weak legal systems of developing countries and therefore resorted to international arbitration. The capacity of foreign investors to choose international arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism gave rise to new problems.2 The paper first examines the current investor-state dispute settlement regime under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) and United Nations Commission on International Trade law (UNCITRAL). It then identifies and analyzes the various criticisms of the current system. The next section of the paper aims at recognizing and evaluating the commonly proposed recommendations with a special focus on the ones by United Nations Convention on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Lastly it is argued that the current challenges of the investor-state dispute settlement can only be improved by undertaking responsibilities of drafting exhaustive treaty provisions by the state parties and maintaining transparency and accountability by the arbitration forums.
1 Chen Huiping, ‘The Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Where To Go In The 21st Century?’ (2008) 9 The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 467, 467.
2 Rodrigo Polanco Lazo, ‘International Arbitration in Times of Change: Fairness and Transparency in Investor-State Disputes’ (2010) 104 American Society of International Law, 591, 591.
3 Ling Ling He, Razeen Sapideen, ‘Investor-State Arbitration under Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreements: Finding Rhythm in Inconsistent Drumbeats’ [2013] 47 Journal of World Trade, 215, 215.
4 Dr. Christian Tietje, ‘The Impact of Investor-State-Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ (Study prepared for Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands, MINBUZA-2014.78850, 24 June 2014) 7, 20.
5 Ibid 22.
6 ‘About OECD‘ <http://www.oecd.org/about/> accessed 8 December 2014.
7 Joachim Paul, Kekeletso Mashigo, Alexis Nohan, ‘Dispute Settlement Provisions in International Investment Agreements: A Large Sample Survey’, (2012) OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2012/02, OECD Publishing, 7, 8 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8xb71nf628-en> accessed on 9 December 2014.
8 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development <http://unctad.org/en/Pages/AboutUs.aspx> accessed on 8 December 2014.
9 UNCTAD, ‘Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’ (IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014), 1.
10 August Reinisch, ‘The Scope of Investor-State Dispute Settlement in International Investment Agreements’ (2013) 21 Asia Pacific Law Review 3, 4.
11 He and Sapideen (n3) 215-216.
12 Ibid., 217.
13 Daniel Ikenson, ‘A Compromise to Advance the Trade Agenda: Purge Negotiations of Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (Cato Institute, 2014) Para 14 <http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/compromise-advance-trade-agenda-purge-negotiations-investor-state> accessed 9 December 2014.
14 Steffen Hinderlang, ’Study on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Alternatives of Dispute Resolution in International Investment Law (2014) Study for European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade 2/2014, 39 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2525063> accessed 10 December 2014.
15 Ibid.
16 UNCTAD, ’Reform of Investor State Dispute Settlements: In search of a Roadmap’ (IIA Issues Note, No. 2, June 2013), 2.
17 The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is established by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (The ICSID Convention) in 1966 which provides facilities for conciliation and arbitration of investment disputes. <https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ShowHome&pageName=AboutICSID_Home> accessed on 10 December 2014.
18 Ibid.
19 United Nations commission on International Trade law (UNCITRAL) adopted the original UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in 1976 and have been used for the settlement of a broad range of disputes, including disputes between private commercial parties where no arbitral institution is involved, investor-State disputes, State-to-State disputes and commercial disputes administered by arbitral institutions (The UNICITRAL Arbitration Rules). <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2010Arbitration_rules.html> accessed on 10 December 2014.
20 Andrew P. Tuck, ‘Investor-State Arbitration Revised: A Critical Analysis of the Revision and Proposed Reforms to the ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules’ [2007] Law and Business Review of the Americas 885, 885.
21 The ICSID Convention, Article 25(1).
22 The UNICITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 1.
23 The ICSID Convention, Article 26.
24 The UNICITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 3.
25 The UNICITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 8 and The ICSID Convention, Article 37.
26 The UNICITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 33 and The ICSID Convention, Article 53.
27 Hinderlang (n14) 40.
28 www.uscib.org, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (2014) <http://www.uscib.org/docs/2011_05_05_investor_to_state_brief.PDF> accessed 11 December 2014.
29 Ibid.
30 James Politi, ‘Does ISDS Strengthen or Weaken the Rule of Law? The Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: An Examination of Benefits and Costs’ (CATO Institute 2014) <http://www.cato.org/events/investor-state-dispute-settlement-mechanismexamination-benefits-costs> accessed 11 December 2014.
31 Hinderlang, 56.
32 Sachet Singh and Sooraj Sharma, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: The Quest For A Workable Roadmap’ (2013) 29 Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 88, 92.
33 ‘Multinationals have exploited woolly definitions of expropriation to claim compensation for changes in government policy that happen to have harmed their business via ISDS’ The Economist, ‘The Arbitration Game’ The Economist (2014) <http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-aresouring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration> accessed 12 December 2014.
34 EurActiv | EU News & policy debates, across languages, ‘ISDS Clause: A Gateway to Future Trade Deals’ (9 December 2014) <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/ttip-andarbitration-clause/isds-clause-gateway-future-trade-deals-310648> accessed 12 December 2014.
35 See Corporate Europe Observatory, ‘Still Not Loving ISDS: 10 Reasons To Oppose Investors’ Super-Rights In EU Trade Deals’ (Corporate Europe, 16 April 2014) <http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2014/04/still-not-loving-isds-10-reasonsoppose-investors-super-rights-eu-trade> accessed 12 December 2014.
36 See Donald Robertson, ‘Australia Goes against the Trend with Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (FreeHills, 20 May 2014) <http://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/-/media/Freehills/Australia%20goes%20against%20the%20trend%20with.PDF> accessed 12 December 2014.
37 M Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge University Press 2004), 202, para 2.
38 Ikenson, para 27.
39 Corporate Europe Observatory, para 12.
40 Ibid.
41 UNCTAD (n9) 15.
42 ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement: A Sequel, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II’ (United Nations 2014), 115, para 2 <http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeia2013d2_en.pdf> accessed 12 December 2014.
43 Corporate Europe Observatory, para 20.
44 Tietje, 40, para 68.
45 Kyla Tienhaara, ‘Regulatory Chill and the Threat of Arbitration: A View from Political Science’ [2010] Social Science Research Network, 3-4.
46 Ikenson, para 29.
47 Tietje, para 79.
48 See the case of Indonesia and its Open pit mines at P. Jepson (2001) Science <https://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5518/859.full> accessed on 12 December 2014.
49 See Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador on <http://icsidreview.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/1/15.short> accessed on 12 December 2014.
50 Julia G. Brown, ‘International Investment Agreements: Regulatory Chill In The Face Of Litigious Heat?’ (2014) 3 Western Journal of Legal Studies 1, 18.
51 Catherine A. Rogers, ‘The Selection of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration’ (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2012), 4. <http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/50241347.pdf> accessed 12 December 2014.
52 Ibid.
53 Lazo, 593, para 5.
54 The Economist, para 5.
55 Lazo, 593-594.
56 “The total number of known treaty-based cases reached 568 by the end of 2013”. See UNCTAD, 7.
57 UNCTAD, ‘Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap’ (United Nations 2013) 4-10 <http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d4_en.pdf> accessed 13 December 2014, hereinafter called the UNCTAD Report 2013.
58 For further information See the Mediation and conciliation Process: Key features, UNCTAD, ‘Investor–State Disputes: Prevention And Alternatives To Arbitration’ (United Nations 2010) 28-29 <http://unctad.org/en/docs/diaeia200911_en.pdf> accessed 13 December 2014.
59 UNCTAD 2013, 5.
60 Herbert Smith Freehills – Arbitration notes, ‘UNCTAD Proposes ISDS Reforms’ (2013) <http://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2013/07/15/unctad-proposes-isds-reforms/> accessed 13 December 2014.
61 Tietje, para 204. Also see for example, Article 10(14) of the US-Chile FTA; Article 88 of the Japan-Chile FTA; Article 11(15) of the Korea-Australia FTA.
62 See Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between Japan and the Republic of Indonesia of 2007, Article 9 of the BIT between India and Sweden of 2000, Article 23 of the United States Model BIT of 2004.
63 UNCTAD 2010, 61.
64 Mark A. Clodfelter, ‘Why Aren’t More Investor-State Treaty Disputes Settled Amicably?’ (United Nations Publications 2011) 38, 40 <http://unctad.org/en/docs/webdiaeia20108_en.pdf> accessed 13 December 2014.
65 UNCTAD Report 2013, 6.
66 Ibid., 7.
67 Ibid.
68 Paul, Mashiago, and Nohan, 22.
69 UNCTAD, ‘Recent Development in Investor State Dispute Settlement’ (United Nations May 2013) 2 <http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d3_en.pdf> accessed 13 December 2014.
70 UNCTAD 2013 (n16) 111. Also see CME/Lauder dispute, the Czech Republic refused to consent to the consolidation of the two cases, as proposed by the claimants, and prevailed in one of the cases. Key Cases From 2000–2010 (1st edn, IISD) 34 <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2011/int_investment_law_and_sd_key_cases_2010.pdf> accessed 13 December 2014.
71 UNCTAD, ‘Transparency’ (United Nations 2012), 37, para 4 <http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/unctaddiaeia2011d6_en.pdf> accessed 13 December 2014.
72 Herbert Smith Freehills – Arbitration notes.
73 UNCTAD Report 2013, 7, para 1.
74 Ibid., 7-8.
75 “An umbrella clause is a provision in an international investment agreement (IIA) by which the host state guarantees the observation of obligations assumed by it with respect to investments.”
75 See Dr. Alexander Shchavelev, ‘Umbrella Clauses. A Balanced Approach to Interpretation’ (Grin.com, 2012) <http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/262674/umbrella-clauses-a-balanced-approach-to-interpretation> accessed 14 December 2014.
76 The criteria were formulated in Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4), Decision on Jurisdiction, 31 July 2001.
77 UNCTAD 2013, 12.
78 Tietje, para 195.
79 UNCTAD Report 2013, 8.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid., 9.
82 Katia Yannaca-Small, ‘Improving the System of Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (OECD Publishing 2006) 9-10 <http://www.oecd.org/china/WP-2006_1.pdf> accessed 14 December 2014.
83 Nicolette Butler, ‘Possible Improvements to the Framework of International Investment Arbitration’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade, 613, 634.
84 Ibid., 635.
85 UNCTAD Report 2013 (n57) 9.
86 Ibid.
87 Herbert Smith Freehills – Arbitration notes.
88 European Parliamentary Report, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) State Of Play and Prospects for Reform’ (European Parliamentary Research Support 2014), 9.
89 Catherine A. Rogers, ‘The Politics of International Investment Arbitrators’ (2014) 12 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 225, 249.
90 Ibid., 250.
91 UNCTAD 2014, 170, para 2.
92 Tuck, 885.
93 R.S. French AC, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement — A Cut above the Courts?’ International Trade Law Symposium (Law Council of Australia 2014) 2 <
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/ILS/images/2014%20International%20Trade%20Law%20Symposium%20Papers%20-%20FINAL.pdf> accessed 14 December 2014.
94 Reinisch, 26.
95 UNCTAD 2013, 12.
96 Hilary Birks and Anna MacMohan, ‘Allens: Publication: Focus: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Under The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement’ (Allens.com.au, 2014) <
http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/ibo/foibo6mar14.htm#KAFTA> accessed 14 December 2014.
97 Article 2, Canada and US model BIT, Marie-France Houde, ‘Novel Features In Recent OECD Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs 2006) 144, 150 <
http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/internationalinvestmentagreements/40072428.pdf> accessed 15 December 2014.
98 Tidewater vs Venezuela ICSID Case No ARB/10/5, para 150 <
http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1277.pdf> accessed 15 December 2014.
99 Hinderlang, 113.
100 Tietje, para 211.
101 Birks and MacMohan.
102 Roderick Abbott, Fredrik Erixon and Martina Ferracane, ‘Demystifying Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’ (2014) 5 ECIPE Occasional Paper 1, 14.
103 A. Reinisch, ‘How Narrow Are Narrow Dispute Settlement Clauses in Investment Treaties?’ (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1, 3.
104 Brown, 19.
105 Ibid.
106 Reinisch, 17.
107 UNCTAD 2014, 162.
108 Kent.ac.uk, ‘Statement Of Concern About Planned Provisions On Investment Protection And Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) In The Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership (TTIP) – Kent Law School – University Of Kent’ (2014) <
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html> accessed 15 December 2014.
109 A majority of the tribunal in Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan agreed to apply the MFN clause to jurisdictional matters. See UNCTAD, 17.
For further information see Reinisch, 18-38.
110 UNCTAD 2014, 27.
111 Tietje, para 121.
112 Article 5, US Model BIT<
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/BIT%20text%20for%20ACIEP%20Meeting.pdf> accessed 15 December 2014.
113 Brown, 22.
114 David Gaukrodger and Kathryn Gordon, ‘“Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community’ (OECD 2012) 44, para 2 <
http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2012_3.pdf> accessed 15 December 2014.
115 UNCTAD 2014, 179-180.
116 Ibid.
117 Tuck.
118 Brown, 6.
119 Ibid.
120 Tietje, para 239.
121 Stefan Rützel and Stephan Wilske, ’07 European Union Overview Chapter – International Arbitration 2014′ (International Comparative Legal Guides, 2014) <
http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/international-arbitration-/international-arbitration2014/european-union-overview> accessed 15 December 2014.
122 Justthefacts.pmi.com, ‘Trade Agreements and ISDS: Protecting Public Interest and Protectors – Just the Facts’ (2014) <
http://justthefacts.pmi.com/international-trade-agreements-and-isds-protecting-the-intellectual-property-rights-of-legal-business/> accessed 15 December 2014.
123 Brown, 24.
124 August, 23.
† LLM Candidate, University of Warwick School of Law.
(2016). A Critical Analysis of the Commonly Recommended Reforms of Investor- State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Legal issues Journal, 4 (1), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/04-01-09012016/
