Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in International Law
The Role Of Arbitral Tribunals In Determining The Scope Of The Fair And Equitable Treatment Standard, Thomas Ferguson Whip
The Role Of Arbitral Tribunals In Determining The Scope Of The Fair And Equitable Treatment Standard, Thomas Ferguson Whip
LL.M. Essays & Theses
Whether or not investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) faces a “legitimacy crisis,” there is a “growing consensus” that it requires reform. The development of the fair and equitable treatment standard (“FET standard”) by arbitral tribunals been a salient factor in fomenting this consensus and is the subject of several reform proposals. A number of scholars, including Professors Sornarajah and Gus van Harten, claim the interpretative process undertaken by tribunals in relation to the FET standard has contributed to ISDS’ legitimacy crisis because it involves applying subjective notions of what adjudicators perceive to be desirable developments of the law. On the other …
Advocates Say Isds Is Necessary Because Domestic Courts Are ‘Inadequate,’ But Claims And Decisions Don’T Reveal Systemic Failings, Maria Rocha, Martin Dietrich Brauch, Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye
Advocates Say Isds Is Necessary Because Domestic Courts Are ‘Inadequate,’ But Claims And Decisions Don’T Reveal Systemic Failings, Maria Rocha, Martin Dietrich Brauch, Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications
Proponents of including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in treaties, contracts, and even national laws argue that ISDS is necessary because domestic courts are “inadequate.” Without this mechanism, foreign investors would be dependent on domestic courts and administrative mechanisms, which, proponents claim, are often inefficient, slow, biased, corrupt, and lacking in international law expertise, especially in developing countries. As one insight to analyze the “inadequate courts” argument, CCSI has examined treaty-based ISDS cases in which investors complained of domestic court proceedings or decisions, including the specific complaints and the tribunals’ analysis of those claims.