DefinePK

Abstract

This thesis explores the concept of incoherence in investment arbitration and evaluates the investor-state dispute resolution reforms. The first part provides a comprehensive overview of investment arbitration, elucidating its evolution, principles of jurisdiction, and the procedural frameworks adopted by prominent arbitration institutions like ICSID and UNCITRAL. It underscores the dynamic nature of investment arbitration, emphasizing the significance of remaining abreast of jurisdictional developments.
The subsequent part delves into the cruciality of uniformity in investment arbitration and the obstacles that impede its attainment due to the decentralized nature of the system and the diversity of legal systems and cultures involved. This chapter underscores the active participation of diverse stakeholders and their endeavors to foster uniformity in investment arbitration.
The paper meticulously examines the ISDS Reforms, designed to redress criticisms and enhance consistency in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Procedural and substantive changes constitute the focus of this reform, including measures to improve transparency in arbitral decisions, establish a code of conduct for arbitrators, refine appointment and qualification criteria, and introduce multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanisms. Substantive reforms involve clarifying treaty provisions, instituting appellate mechanisms, fostering the weight of precedent, and striking a balance between investor rights and host state regulatory autonomy. These reforms aim to harmonize interpretations and bolster consistency in investment arbitration.
Nevertheless, the ISDS Reforms are not impervious to critiques and challenges. Some contend that the reform's ambit remains insufficient, as it fails to comprehensively address fundamental issues such as arbitrator appointment and challenges to their impartiality. Others assert that the reform inadequately redresses the perceived imbalance between investor rights and public interests, potentially impeding states' capacity to regulate matter of public importance. Looking ahead, it is imperative for states, investors, and other stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue and collaboration to foster consensus and find common ground. By cultivating a balanced and equitable framework for investment arbitration, the reform can contribute to the promotion of investment, safeguarding the rights of investors, and preserving the regulatory autonomy of host states.