Investor State Dispute Settlement in the 2016 Indian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty: Does It Go Too Far?

The effects of India's bilateral investment treaties termination on foreign direct investment inflows

“…3 Subsequently, India received 17 notifications from other companies about initiating disputes based on BIT provisions (Hanessian & Duggal, 2015). Thus, the Model BIT revision was necessary to eliminate the identified shortcomings, avoid further financial and reputational costs, and achieve a new balance in the state-investor relationship (Ranjan et al, 2018).…”

“…First, it asked 58 countries to review the agreement based on a new Model BIT and terminate the existing BITs. Second, India asked 25 countries to form joint interpretive statements of the BIT provisions to clarify the ambiguity of some provisions without terminating the existing agreement 6 (Ranjan et al, 2018). As we can see, BITs with some of these countries (such as China and Kuwait) were terminated later.…”

An Investment Court that Judges the Judges: A Case of Natural Selection?

“…In particular, most states are guided by the requirements of the New York Convention when enforcing arbitration agreements and international awards. 182 That stated, the balance of the relationship can be tested, by denouncing or withdrawing from the ICSID Convention (as in the case of Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela), 183 or a series of investment treaties it is privy to (in the recent case of India) 184 or the New York Convention. The question raised in this article was whether this relationship can be developed and improved by the features of an investment court.…”