One of the most important characteristics of an investment treaty is that often it grants aggrieved investors access to international arbitration. This arbitration system does not require a foreign investor to petition his home state in order to bring claims against a host state, and provides an alternative to resolving disputes in the host state's local court. Although international investment arbitration is beneficial for countries in terms of foreign direct investment, it has been accused of not being transparent or effective especially in relation to environment or public health cases. Some countries expressed their discomfort with the current international investment law regime by radical exit solutions such as denunciation of the Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states, rejection of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and unilateral denunciation of investment treaties. Based on a vast law, economics and political science literature, this paper proposes arguments to examine these criticisms. First, it is argued that investor-state arbitration is currently a concern in both developing and developed countries. Second, although assessing the spillover effects of arbitration outcomes on some dimensions of public interests such as the environment or public health is not straightforward, the uncertainty that leads to arbitrariness and sometimes inconsistencies in arbitral decision-making exists and needs to be properly identified. Finally, this article argues that exit is not efficient at either the national or international levels, and that it is possible for countries to adapt the current regime to new situations without wholesale exit.

International investment arbitration is a third-party dispute resolution mechanism aimed mainly at depoliticizing investment disputes and maintaining efficient investment flows among countries. Almost one-third of treaty-based investor-state disputes brought before this system are settled before the tribunal’s final ruling. Given the classical “Against Settlement” debate in the legal literature, we build an original database of treaty-based arbitrations from 1996 to 2016 to empirically test the determinants of early settlement. We find that the probability of settlement increases if the host state has no experience of resolving those kinds of disputes but decrease if it anticipates a favorable outcome. The nature of the regulatory measures applied by the host state and the identity of foreign investors are additional important determinants of settlement. Interestingly, we find strong evidence of a Dutch effect in dispute resolution.

No abstract