No abstract

This article reports on a study of potential systemic bias in the resolution of ambiguous legal issues by investment treaty arbitrators. It outlines tentative but significant findings that the arbitrators in general tended to favour (1) foreign investors over states overall, (2) foreign investors from major Western capital-exporting states over other foreign investors, and, albeit based on more limited data, (3) the United States as a respondent state over other respondent states. The evidence is derived from an extensive content analysis of the arbitrators' resolution of fourteen legal issues that are contested among arbitrators or in secondary literature. The findings clearly support initial expectations of systemic bias arising from unique incentives of the arbitrators. Yet the study also has important limitations and there is a range of possible explanations for the findings, some not raising concerns of inappropriate bias. Broadly, the findings lend support to perceptions that the design of investment treaty arbitration does not support fair and independent adjudication of the boundaries of sovereign authority and of disputes involving public funds.

The article outlines a simple thesis: that international investment arbitration-pursuant to regional and bilateral investment treaties-offers the clearest example of global administrative law, strictly construed, yet to have emerged. We present this thesis by explicating four key features of investment treaties: they permit investor claims against the state without exhausting local remedies; they allow claims for damages; they allow investors to directly seek enforcement of awards before domestic courts; and they facilitate forum-shopping. Our argument is that, owing to this unique conjunction of features, the regulatory conduct of states is, to an unusual extent, subject to control through compulsory international adjudication. Having highlighted these features, we then claim that investment arbitration is best analogized to domestic administrative law rather than to international commercial arbitration, especially since investment arbitration engages disputes arising from the exercise of public authority by the state as opposed to private acts of the state. Further, we claim that the linkages between investment arbitration and domestic legal systems are more direct and more closely integrated than other forms of international adjudication in the public sphere. For these reasons, we argue that the emerging regime of investment arbitration is to be understood as constituting an important and powerful manifestation of global administrative law.

In this paper, we report findings on whether trade and investment agreements that allow for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) contribute to regulatory chill. The study focused on whether ISDS contributed to changes in internal vetting of government decisions related to environmental protection in the province of Ontario, Canada. Our main source of information was confidential interviews with insiders, mostly current or former officials in ministries with an environmental or trade mandate. We aimed to advance understanding of litigation risk and government decision-making with a focus on ISDS.

No abstract