Independence and Impartiality of Adjudicators in Investment Dispute Settlement: Assessing Challenges and Reform Options

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 441-474
Author(s):  
Chiara Giorgetti ◽  
Steven Ratner ◽  
Jeffrey Dunoff ◽  
Shotaro Hamamoto ◽  
Luke Nottage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Present System ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Abstract As discussions on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement deepen and gather momentum at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), this article delves into a specific and fundamental issue: the requirement that adjudicators in investment disputes are and remain independent and impartial. It begins by explaining the principle of independence and impartiality in international courts and tribunals, with a focus on arbitral institutions. The article then highlights a range of specific concerns that the present system of investor-State arbitration raises in respect of independence and impartiality. Finally, it provides a comparative analysis of how different reform proposals presently discussed within UNCITRAL Working Group III would fare in terms of delivering a dispute resolution mechanism that ensures independence and impartiality. Rather than providing one specific solution, this article assesses the different options discussed, with the aim to help both policy-makers considering reform and other stakeholders and scholars.

The Diversity Deficit in International Investment Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 410-440
Author(s):  
Andrea K. Bjorklund ◽  
Daniel Behn ◽  
Susan D. Franck ◽  
Chiara Giorgetti ◽  
Won Kidane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
World View ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
System 2 ◽  
Global North ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Area Of Concern

Abstract The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III on ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) Reform considers issues of adjudicator diversity to be an area of concern for the legitimacy of the ISDS system. Studies show that nearly all of the most prominent and repeatedly appointed arbitrators in ISDS cases are men from the Global North with significant prior experience in ISDS cases. Rather than being seen as fair, just, and devoid of bias, decisions are sometimes suspected to be the products of adjudicators who share a particular world view. This article focuses on four key issues: (1) how a lack diversity affects the real and perceived legitimacy of the ISDS system; (2) empirical evidence on the current extent of the diversity problem in ISDS; (3) the causes of the perpetuation of the diversity deficit in ISDS; and (4) what can be done to improve diversity in ISDS.

scholarly journals Parsing and Managing Inconsistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 336-373
Author(s):  
Julian Arato ◽  
Chester Brown ◽  
Federico Ortino
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Structural Rules ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Rules Of The Game

Abstract Inconsistency in legal interpretation is among the most salient problems in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) and it is one of the key issues being addressed by the reform efforts in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III. While some degree of interpretive inconsistency is endemic to any legal order, systemic inconsistency tends to undermine the basic purposes of the investment treaty regime – namely protecting and promoting foreign direct investment through predictable international legal rules and institutions. This article seeks to parse the problem of inconsistency at a more granular level, in order to distinguish between types of norms where a degree of inconsistency is (relatively) manageable and (potentially) tolerable, and those where inconsistency is unacceptable. We argue that it is with regard to structural ‘rules of the game’ where inconsistency is most destructive.

scholarly journals Special Issue: UNCITRAL and Investment Arbitration Reform: Matching Concerns and Solutions

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 167-187
Author(s):  
Malcolm Langford ◽  
Michele Potestà ◽  
Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler ◽  
Daniel Behn
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Treaty Reform ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis

Abstract The ongoing ‘legitimacy crisis’ in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) has triggered a comprehensive attempt at multilateral reform. In 2017, Working Group III at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was entrusted with a broad, open-ended and problem-driven mandate. The reform process aims to tackle particular concerns with ISDS: excessive costs and lengthy proceedings, inconsistent and incorrect decisions, and a lack of arbitral diversity and independence. The exclusion of substantive treaty reform has met critique but states are considering a wide range of procedural options from incremental reform to a multilateral court, appellate mechanism, and ISDS alternatives. In this article, we introduce the reform process and the seven articles that follow in this Special Issue of the Journal on World and Investment and Trade. In these contributions, ISDS Academic Forum members analyse the basis for each concern and the potential contribution of leading reform models.

“Constitutionalization” and Dispute Settlement in the wto: National Security as an Issue of Competence

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes L. Schloemann ◽  
Stefan Ohlhoff
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Uruguay Round ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The 1994 Uruguay Round revision of the dispute settlement mechanism under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) has made it a forum both for traditional trade issues and for interests ranging from environmental protection to national security. The limits of GATT jurisdiction have become important issues of dispute settlement within the WTO, especially as the emergence of the WTO and its rule-based, quasi-obligatory dispute settlement system has spurred a significant shift toward legalism. Constitutional structures are developing much faster in international trade law than in any other area of international law and, in the aftermath of the Uruguay Round, are integrating ever more aspects of economic relations among states. Within the WTO regime the dispute settlement mechanism established by the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) plays a prominent role in enforcing its rules and reconciling a wide array of the members’ interests. The limits of the reach of the dispute settlement mechanism, given its obligatory character, are, to a certain degree, the limits of the constitutionalization of the organization as a whole.

13. International Economic Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Economic ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Economic Law ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
The World

This chapter begins by defining international economic law. It then discusses the main international economic institutions: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It goes on to elaborate on the key principles of international trade law: tariffication, binding tariffs, most favoured nation treatment and the national treatment obligation and discusses exceptions to these principles, anti-dumping and subsidies, regional trade arrangements, and developing States and dispute settlement within the WTO. The chapter also discusses the key principles of international investment law (including foreign direct investment, protection standards, expropriation and dispute settlement); the international financial architecture; and international economic law and State sovereignty.

scholarly journals Remarks by Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 198-200
Author(s):  
Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
The United Nations

These remarks approach the panel topic of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the crossroads, by reflecting on the ongoing discussions on ISDS reform that are taking place at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). There are three sets of factors likely to inform how ISDS is being transformed.

John Jackson and WTO Dispute Settlement

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-406
Author(s):  
WILLIAM J. DAVEY
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law School ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
The Bible ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World

John Jackson bestrode the world of international trade law like a Colossus. His 1969 treatise on World Trade and the Law of GATT was called the bible of GATT law. His 1977 casebook on Legal Problems of International Economic Relations created a new law school course and introduced thousands of students around the globe to international trade law. It was the leading international trade law casebook for decades, and his students went on to positions of responsibility throughout the world in governments, international organizations, and private practice. His analysis of GATT infirmities convinced certain influential governments to push for a new international trade organization, which eventually saw life as the World Trade Organization. It was a great honor for me to have been associated with John for over thirty years. Indeed, his 1985 invitation to join as a co-author of the casebook after my first year in law teaching undoubtedly saved me many years of drudgery as a corporate/securities law scholar. Thus, I am pleased to offer some thoughts on John's influence on dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO.

scholarly journals The Reflection of WTO Brazilian Dispute Settlements on Domestic Law: A Place to Legal Pluralism?

Eudaimonia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 137-146
Author(s):  
Monique Libardi ◽  
Patricia Glym
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
The World ◽  
Current Scenario ◽  
Dispute Settlements ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

International trade law, followed by the development of legal mechanisms for regulation of multilateral trading system, from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – GATT (1948–94), Uruguay Round (1986–94) to World Trade Organization – WTO (1995) dispute settlement system is the current scenario of the world economy transactions. This paper aims to analyze whether Brazilian activism in the world trading system may be identified in the WTO Dispute Settlement dealing with the concept of direct effect on international law. Since 1995, Brazil has been an assiduous claimant at the WTO and at the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR) dispute mechanism. However, explaining Brazilian participation at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) requires a collision between the Brazilian private sector and the political relevance that trade disputes have acquired.

scholarly journals Rule-based Dispute Settlement Mechanism for ASEAN Economic Community: Does ASEAN Have It?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Koesrianti Koesrianti
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
Political Security ◽  
Asean Economic Community ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

ASEAN Charter 2007 as ‘constitution’ of ASEAN aims to establish ASEAN Community (AC) in 2015 that ASEAN constitutes as a rule-based organization. ASEAN Community consists of three pillars, namely, ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and ASEAN Socio Cultural Community (ASCC). AEC will posses as the lead for the Communities. The objective of AEC is to form a single market and production base with some priority sectors. Accordingly, many economic regional organizations provide Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) to resolve disputes that may arise among the member countries. The dispute mechanism aims to provide predictability and security in international trade by providing strict time-frames, and was designed to be mutually agreed by the disputing members, flexible and binding. ASEAN trade DSM is designed as a legalistic mechanism. This paper examines DSM in ASEAN, especially economic disputes in the context of international trade law. In doing so, this paper analyzes DSM provided in the ASEAN Charter by comparing to DSM in the WTO context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document