Skip to main content

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

  • 534 Accesses

Abstract

In March 2018 the Council of the European Union gave the Commission a mandate to negotiate a Multilateral Investment Court. Furthermore, since 2017 the UNCITRAL Working Group III is discussing different options of a reform of Investor State Dispute Settlement. This report assesses both the option of a two-tiered Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) and of a Multilateral Investment Appellate Mechanism (MIAM). Both models provide for a permanent, pre-appointed judiciary according to rule of law standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kaufmann-Kohler and Potestà (2016, 2017), Howse (2017), Happ and Wuschka (2017), Brown (2017), Calamita (2017), and Hoffmeister (2017).

  2. 2.

    UNCTAD (2013), p. 9; see also Howse (2017): “A multilateral court system is best suited to offering standing or intervention to a wide range of actors who have concerns of international justice that relate to foreign investment.”

  3. 3.

    From an EU perspective, these investment treaties are an integral part of EU law.

References

  • Brown CM (2017) A multilateral mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes. ICSID Rev – FILJ 32:673–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Calamita NJ (2017) The challenge of establishing a Multilateral Investment Tribunal at ICSID. ICSID Rev – FILJ 32:611–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Happ R, Wuschka S (2017) From the Jay Treaty Commissions towards a Multilateral Investment Court: addressing the enforcement dilemma. Indian J Abbr Law 6:113–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2017) The EU contribution to the progressive development of institutional aspects in international investment law. Revue Belge de Droit International 2:566–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R (2017) International investment law and arbitration: a conceptual framework. IILJ Working Paper 2017/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-state arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism?

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2017) The composition of a Multilateral Investment Court and of an appeal mechanism for investment awards

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2013) Reform of investor-state dispute settlement: in search of a roadmap. IIA Issues Note No. 2, June 2013

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bungenberg, M., Reinisch, A. (2018). Executive Summary. In: From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to a Multilateral Investment Court. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01189-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01189-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01188-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01189-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics