NEW APPROACHES TO THE REFORM OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2019-1-27-39
Abstract
Introduction. In light of the ongoing UN discussions over the investor-state dispute settlement reform, this article offers readers an opportunity to develop an understanding of not only the current reform process, but also of the directions of reforms and the key positions advanced by various dogmatic camps. The author reviews and analyses the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions on states’ concerns as presented by four delegations from Russia, the USA, Canada, and the European Union.
Materials and methods. Сonsistent with the mandate’s call for the process to be fully transparent, the recordings of the sessions are made available online. The quotes from the first two meetings (34 th and 35 th ) of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions, therefore, constitute the main resources for this article. There are occasional references to the comments made by international lawyers who received an Observer Delegate status in the Working Group III discussions. As for the methodology, the author opt to employ popular scientific research methods.
Research results. As a result of the conducted research the author offers a comprehensive overview of the delegates' positions with respect to the reform as advanced by Russian and foreign delegates, and brings forward an argument about a direct line between those positions and a prevailing doctrine on the place of international investment law within international law.
Discussion and conclusions. In this article the author underscores a critical distinction in the positions towards the public features of dispute settlement such as multilateralism and transparency. The article reveals the challenge in finding a proper definition for concrete steps of a reform (or reforms), and a framework for working process. Based on the available official positions of the states, and the UNCITRAL documents, the author reaches a conclusion about a long and controversial reform process. Yet the directions of reforms are becoming increasingly clear.
About the Author
A. V. Soloveva
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia.
Russian Federation
Competitor for Candidate of Juridical Sciences Degree at the Department of International Law.
Russian Federation
Competitor for Candidate of Juridical Sciences Degree at the Department of International Law.
References
1. Ben Hamida W. The First Arab Investment Court Decision. – The Journal of World Investment & Trade. 2006. Vol. 7. Issue 5. P. 699–721.
2. Brower Ch.N., Schill St.W. Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? – Chicago Journal of International Law. 2009. Vol. 9. Issue 2. P. 471–498.
3. Burova E.S., Koroteeva K.V. Veter peremen: Aktual'nye obsuzhdeniya reformy sistemy razresheniya sporov mezhdu inostrannymi investorami i gosudarstvami [Wind of Change: Current Discussions of the InvestorState Dispute Settlement Reform]. – Zakon. 2018. No. 5. P. 153–163. (In Russ.)
4. Franck T.M. Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Clarendon Press. 1995. 484 p.
5. Grieco J.M. Cooperation among Nations: Europe, America and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade.Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press. 1990. 272 p.
6. James A. Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy.New York: Oxford University Press. 2012. 380 p.
7. Labin D., Soloveva A. International Investment Law as International Law: Russian and Western Approaches. – AJIL Unbound.2018. Vol. 112. Issue 6. P. 202–206. DOI: 10.1017/aju.2018.58
8. Posner R. Economic Analysis of Law.6 th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers. 2003. 747 p.
9. Puig S., Shaffer G. Imperfect Alternatives: Institutional Choice and the Reform of Investment Law. – American Journal of International Law.2018. Vol. 112. Issue 3. P. 361–409. DOI: 10.1017/ajil.2018.70
10. Rachkov I.V. Reforma mezhdunarodno-pravovogo uregulirovaniya sporov mezhdu inostrannymi investorami i gosudarstvami [Reforming International Resolution of Disputes between Foreign Investors and Host States]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie.2016. No. 3 (19). P. 118– 136. (In Russ.)
11. Ratner St. The Thin Justice of International Law: A Moral Reckoning of the Law of Nations.Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2015. 488 p.
12. Roberts A. Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration. – American Journal of International Law. 2018. Vol. 112. Issue 3. P. 410–432. DOI: 10.1017/ajil.2018.69
13. Schill S.W. W(h)ither Fragmentation? On the Literature and Sociology of International Investment Law. – European Journal of International Law.2001. Vol. 22. Issue 3. P. 875–908.
14. Schneiderman D. Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy's Promise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. 340 p.
15. Shany Y. Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach. – American Journal of International Law.2012. Vol. 106. Issue 2. P. 225–270. DOI: 10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.2.0225
16. The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality.Ed. by M. Waibel et al. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. 2010. 672 p.
Review
For citations:
Soloveva A.V. NEW APPROACHES TO THE REFORM OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT. Moscow Journal of International Law. 2019;(1):27-39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2019-1-27-39
Views:
1016
Email this article 