Advocates Say ISDS Is Necessary Because Domestic Courts Are ‘Inadequate,’ But Claims and Decisions Don’t Reveal Systemic Failings

Authors

Maria Rocha, Columbia Law School, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Martin Dietrich Brauch, Columbia Law School, Columbia Center on Sustainable InvestmentFollow
Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye, Columbia Law School, Columbia Center on Sustainable InvestmentFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-2021

Abstract

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.

Disciplines

Courts | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | International Law | Law

Recommended Citation

Maria Rocha, Martin D. Brauch & Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye, Advocates Say ISDS Is Necessary Because Domestic Courts Are ‘Inadequate,’ But Claims and Decisions Don’t Reveal Systemic Failings, (2021).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/207