For the last two to three decades there has been an on-going legitimacy debate surrounding Investment Treaty Arbitration. States, scholars and public opinion argue that reform is needed. The European Union proposes the reform of Investor-State Arbitration through the creation of an Investment Court System. This is exemplified by recent European Union negotiated trade agreements such as the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement and the EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement. This thesis discusses whether an Investment Court System is a step towards solving the legitimacy concerns or whether an Investment Court System will thrust Investor-State Arbitration into the relative unknown, exacerbating the validity questions enveloping Investor-State Arbitration. The thesis observes the criticisms raised by eminent scholars, States and campaigners against Investor-State Arbitration and the reforms proposed by the European Union Commission and European Union Parliament, in the form of an Investment Court System. Finally, the study looks briefly at how certain countries who have become disenfranchised with Investor-State Arbitration are approaching reform internationally, and comparatively discusses whether these options would be more beneficial to the Investor-State Arbitration community, rather than the European Union proposed Investment Court System.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-384391 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | Rush, Tadhg |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Juridiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0014 seconds