Special Issue: UNCITRAL and Investment Arbitration Reform: Matching Concerns and Solutions
Abstract from the introduction
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.
The special issue is available here.
Empirical Perspectives on Investment Arbitration: What Do We Know? Does It Matter?
Daniel Behn, Malcolm Langford and Laura Létourneau-Tremblay have also contributed with the article “Empirical Perspectives on Investment Arbitration: What Do We Know? Does It Matter?” In the article, the authors seek to provide a state-of-the-art summary and assessment of empirical studies on the six identified concerns of states: legal cost, duration of proceedings, consistency, correctness, diversity and independence.
Read the article here.