We begin with a short analysis of the history of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). We then discuss the merits and demerits of the regime, such as the arguments between finality, speediness, and correctness. Following from this, historical reforms are discussed, and whether those issues have gotten worse or better since these discussions. The modern problems are discussed, leading to the explanation of the “legitimacy crisis”. As Appellate Mechanisms (AM) and Investment Court Systems (ICS) both propose multi layered systems, we argue whether ISDS must be a “one bite at the apple” system. We expand on the issues of regulatory chill, before showing the contradictions in the granting of awards. From this, a discussion is raised on the advantages of a tenured system of adjudicators, particularly in reference to their apparent bias. We delve deeper into the direct consequences of the perceived issues of ISDS, in the context of human rights, the environment, and other issues of sovereignty.As more reforms are suggested, the question of “what makes arbitration, arbitration?” is raised. From here, we may begin to suggest reforms based on which key factors are to be preserved. Firstly, we discuss current reform options, such as the Mauritius Convention. We take inspiration from existing AM, and prior discussions on the implementation of such a system across the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) frameworks. We analyse whether these discussions have led to change by comparing trends in drafting.Thereon, we offer suggestions of reform. ICS and how this would be implemented, what it would look like structurally, and its positive and negative effects. Using the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and other contemporary ICS reform suggestions, we gain some knowledge of what an ICS regime could and should look like, the implementation of AM previously discussed in this regime, and other. Finally, we offer a different solution to the problems, yet less pragmatic, the termination of arbitration.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-443417 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Drakopoulos, David |
| 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 0.0047 seconds