What are states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)? To help answer that question, we have put together four posts that compile the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions.
The takeaway from the UNCITRAL’s process for its so-called "reform" discussions is that lawyers making millions in ISDS cases are welcomed, while the voices of the millions of people whose lives are harmed by ISDS cases brought by multinational corporations are barely an afterthought.
Update to Allen & Overy 2012 study shows increases on all metrics but, importantly, tribunals taking more nuanced and rigorous approach to parties’ costs
More than 40 governments met as part of a working group of the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to discuss reforms to the investor-state dispute settlement system.
The investment treaty system is likely to be marked by the co-existence of investor-state arbitration and an international investment court, leading to pluralism rather than a dichotomous either/or choice or a clear before-and-after moment.
This Working Group was not “business as usual” because it was much more government-led than is typical of UNCITRAL Working Groups and it started out with a vote instead of conforming to UNCITRAL’s typical approach of working by consensus.
Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) began its deliberation on possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS).