Who wins in international investment arbitration disputes? Evidence from Latin American and Caribbean countries cases under ICSID

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Ruiz Díaz
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-113
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Ruiz Diaz

During the nineties, an important group of Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries adhered to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as part of a programme of measures that sought to attract foreign investment to the region. With the aim of exploring the determinants of arbitration outcomes, I use a dataset of 161 concluded disputes until 2019 corresponding to investments in LAC countries, finding evidence on the influence of parties’ characteristics, the subject discussed in cases, and characteristics of the tribunal on the arbitration outcomes. I find that 50% of tribunal decisions have been favourable to either claimant investors or host countries. However, this result may be subject to sample bias if information of settlements and discontinued cases is not taken into consideration. I also find evidence in favour of selection and party capability theories that helps to explain the determinants of international investment arbitration dispute outcomes. In particular, the results reveal that disputes related to direct expropriations have a relatively higher probability of being considered founded by tribunals than other legal controversies. Likewise, the indicators of the relative strength of parties, such as experience in the international arbitration system, have an important influence on tribunal awards. Furthermore, country’s time of experience within ICSID is found to have an important influence on the selection of disputes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-166
Author(s):  
Mélida N Hodgson

Abstract Over the last two decades Latin American States have been deluged with investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) with double-digit cases, and billion-dollar damages awards. These States have sought to regain control of the narrative by embarking on various reform initiatives. This article first sets the scene with a brief review of the experience of Latin American States with investment arbitration over the last two decades, then examines the efforts undertaken in the last few years by Latin American States to gain control over their investment arbitration experience. This has been done on a bilateral, regional and supra-regional level. Reforms including the revisions of substantive provisions, as well as the development of regional arbitration fora are examined. Finally, it offers some thoughts on the prospects for the region’s reform movement.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Gustavo Prieto Muñoz

The present article argues for the need of an alternative way of thinking about international investment law and investor-State disputes in Latin America. The article explains how the current critical approach to foreign investment comes from a conceptual trajectory that originated in the 19th century with the work of Carlos Calvo, inspired in turn by Emer De Vattel’s conceptual model for international law, and how a principles discourse would be a viable alternative for enhancing the legitimacy of investment arbitration. The article further structures such a principles discourse in three clusters: general principles recognised by Latin American nations; principles compatible with concepts developed by investment arbitrators, and regional principles not yet recognised by international investment arbitrators. The last cluster contains in particular principles such as transparency and inclusion that ought to be the core of a Latin American discourse as the limit of the authority granted to investment arbitrators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document