Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: The Quest for a Workable Roadmap

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed an unprecedented increase in the use of investor-State arbitration, highlighting numerous shortcomings of the existing investor-State dispute settlement system. The legitimacy of the International Investment regime has been under severe criticism due to the growing discontent amongst the investors as well as the host States. The increased litigation has led to both the process and the outcome being questioned and has undermined the growth of harmonious relationships between foreign investors and host States. The object of this paper is to explore a workable roadmap for the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism by tracing the evolution of the existing system and by analysing the dispute settlement mechanism in major international investment agreements. Furthermore, it highlights the causes and the possible consequences of the denunciation of Bilateral Investment Treaties ('BITs') and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ('ICSID') by host nations, which have been plagued by a myriad of investment suits. The authors suggest the need for doing away with highly protective investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms ('ISDSMs') in future investment agreements and recommend the need for designing an appellate mechanism for bringing consistency and predictability to the system. Author AffiliationsSachet Singh and Sooraj Sharma are students of BA LLB (Hons) at

Political origins of health inequities: trade and investment agreements

“…117 ISDS provisions normally require host States to participate in this arbitration process and comply with the arbitration award. The award is binding, with no right to appeal, and usually enforceable through domestic court systems, 118,119 although a number of practical difficulties may exist. Arbitrators often only have the authority to adjudicate a dispute on the basis of the text of the agreement itself, without relying upon other resources or witnesses, and cannot look to a state's other international obligations such as those associated with human rights treaties.…”

Neoliberalism and Health: The Linkages and the Dangers

“…The lack of clear and binding definitions of key concepts such as indirect expropriation (e.g. through strengthened environmental regulation) allows investors, meaning in practice mainly TNCs (Van Harten and Malysheuski ), abundant opportunities for policy challenges, which if successful are normally not appealable and are enforceable through domestic courts (Gaukrodger and Gordon ; Singh and Sharma ). Such cases may take years to be resolved, and settlements may not be public, so it is difficult to assess the long‐term implications for health, but ISDS provisions could be used, for example, to challenge minimum unit pricing for alcohol, taxes on unhealthy ultra‐processed foods, or nutrition labelling (Thow et al ).…”

Debates actuales de arbitraje entre inversionista-Estado en América Latina

“…In January 2012, Venezuela expressed to the World Bank its 'irreversible denunciation' of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (icsid). 68 Presumably, After a recent icc award against Petroleos de Venezuela S. A., a Venezuelan oil company, in favor of an Exxon Mobil, the Venezuelan government decided to withdraw from the icsid. 69 The Calvo doctrine initiated as an alternative, with Ecuador leading, the proposal to create a regional investment court with an appeal facility, and the promotion of adr mechanisms (like mediation) in the framework of Unasur (Union of South American Nations) -a proposal also endorsed by alba (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America).…”