Abstract
The last two decades have seen a remarkable growth in the number of investor-state disputes. Asia itself has witnessed a startling number of investment disputes. Overall, about 21% of all known investment disputes involve Asian states. Several authors predict an increasing number of disputes involving Asian actors in the future. While arbitration remains the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for resolving investor-state disputes, a number of Asian states have expressed discontent with the investment arbitration system. A few States have denounced investor-state arbitration entirely, while others have significantly reformed the dispute resolution provisions in their investment agreements. The EU, Canada and, in Asia, Vietnam have altogether dispensed with the inclusion of “traditional” investor-state arbitration in their investment agreements. In this tumultuous scenario, with Asia witnessing record foreign investment inflows and outflows, it is timely to review the current trends and recent developments in the investment arbitration framework and consider their effects on both Asian states as well as Asian investors. After explaining the current investment treaty and investment arbitration framework, this Chapter examines current trends and concerns in investment arbitration as relevant to the Asia-Pacific region. It reviews several recent developments in investment arbitration—from resolving the common concerns with investment arbitration on a piecemeal basis to a wholesale replacement of the current system—and examines their reception in Asia. It concludes that Asia has seen a considerable evolution (and, perhaps, maturity) in its international investment agreement framework, which bodes well for the region. Several international developments are likely to impact the investment arbitration framework in Asia, and it would be ideal to adapt them to the Asian context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
UNCTAD World Investment Report 2017, accessed by http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2017_en.pdf (noting that the number of cases initiated in 2016 (62) were higher than the 10-year average of 49 cases per year); IIA Issues Note No. 2 2016; UNCTAD World Investment Report 2016, accessed by http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2016_en.pdf (noting that the number of investor-state arbitrations in 2015 set a new annual high). See also Kollamparambil (2016) (concluding on the basis of empirical analysis that investors initiate a higher number of disputes against countries that have IIAs).
- 2.
IIA Issues Note No. 2 2016, IIA Issues Note No. 1 2015. See also UNCTAD World Investment Report 2016, accessed by http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2016_en.pdf<http://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/wir2015ch0_KeyMessage_en.pdf. This is the number of publicly known cases. As a significant number of cases are conducted in a confidential framework, the actual number of disputes is likely to be higher.
- 3.
See http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS/FilterByCountry. See also Chaisse (2013, pp. 187, 202) (concluding that more than 90 investment disputes involving 24 Asia-Pacific states have been filed since 1987). Dr. Chaisse’s study did not include cases involving Asian investors, or claims filed in 2014–2016.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
See generally Vandevelde (2005, p. 157) (noting that foreign investors are increasingly resorting to international arbitration for resolving their disputes with host states).
- 7.
See Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2014). Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/publications/investment-treaty-arbitration-opportunities-reform-arbitral-rules-and-processes.
- 8.
See Press release of the European Commission, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/vietnam/. On 1 February 2016, the text of the EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement was published, following the announcement of the conclusion of the negotiations. The legal review of the text has now begun and will be followed by translation into the EU’s official languages and Vietnamese. The Commission will then present a proposal to the Council of Ministers for approval of the agreement and ratification by the European Parliament. An investment court is also contemplated under the EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (see below). See EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf.
Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1409. See also: Daly and Ahmad (2015).
- 9.
WIR 2016, p. 110 (noting that Indonesia’s draft model BIT is ‘is characterized by carve-outs, safeguards and clarifications’). See also, UNCTAD (2007) (noting a recent trend of “more circumscribed” IIA dispute settlement provisions, and citing the Malaysia–Pakistan Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (2007) which excludes all disputes concerning national treatment and performance requirements as an example.)
- 10.
See, for instance, the 2015 Indian Model BIT, which has been analyzed in Chapter 16 [add full reference].
- 11.
Following their meeting in Shanghai on 9–10 July 2016 under the Chinese G20 Presidency, G20 trade ministers issued a statement reinforcing their determination to “promote inclusive, robust and sustainable trade and investment growth.” At the same time, ministers agreed to the G20 Principles. See Annex III: G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking [available at www.g20.org/]. Nine non-binding Guiding Principles provide guidance for investment policymaking with a view to fostering an open, transparent and conducive global policy environment for investment, promoting coherence in national and international investment policymaking and promoting inclusive economic growth and sustainable development.
- 12.
See Annex III: G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking.
- 13.
See WIR 2017; WIR 2016.
- 14.
See generally Lowenfeld (2003, pp. 123, 129).
- 15.
See generally Chaisse and Bellak (2015, p. 79).
- 16.
- 17.
UNCTAD (2016).
- 18.
See Chaisse (2015, p. 563).
- 19.
See http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA; Bryan Cave (2015).
- 20.
See http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA; WIR 2016, p. 101 (noting that Japan, the Republic of Korea and China were the “most active” in concluding IIAs).
- 21.
‘Home state’ refers to the investor’s state of nationality.
- 22.
‘Host state’ refers to the state in which the investment is made.
- 23.
Sacerdoti (2014, p. 4).
- 24.
Blythe (2013, pp. 273–290).
- 25.
IIA Issues Note No. 1 (2017) showing trends in known IIA based investor-state cases from 1987 to 2016; IIA Issues Note No. 2 (2016) (finding that 62% of all known cases have been filed under the ICSID Convention or ICSID Additional Facility Rules).
- 26.
Allee and Peinhardt (2010, p. 1).
- 27.
Some level of institutional support is often provided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.
- 28.
Allee and Peinhardt (2010, p. 401).
- 29.
MercoPress, US will vote against loans to Argentina in World Bank and IDB, available at http://en.mercopress.com/2011/09/29/us-will-vote-against-loans-to-argentina-in-world-bank-and-idb.
- 30.
Viñuales and Bentolila (2012).
- 31.
See generally, Rosenberg (2013, p. 503).
- 32.
ICSID, “50 Years of ICSID”, available at www.icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/ICSID%20Timeline%20-%20Featured.pdf. See also Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3), Award, June 27, 1990.
- 33.
See http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS; Behn and Langford (2016).
- 34.
Scott Miller and Gregory Hicks, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A reality Check’, available at www.csis.org/analysis/investor-state-dispute-settlement-reality-check-working-paper.
- 35.
WIR 2017, IIA Issues Note No. 2 2016.
- 36.
WIR 2017, IIA Issues Note No. 2 2016.
- 37.
A ‘win’ is defined as the awarding of US$1 or more, even if de minimus or less than the investor’s unrecovered expenses. Franck and Wylie (2015, p. 459).
- 38.
Franck and Wylie (2015).
- 39.
Scott Miller and Gregory Hicks, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A reality Check’, available at https://www.csis.org/analysis/investor-state-dispute-settlement-reality-check-working-paper.
- 40.
Wellhausen (2016, pp. 117–135).
- 41.
For an analysis of the limits of empirical research in answering legal questions see Van Harten (2011, p. 33).
- 42.
Nottage and Romesh Weeramantry (2012, p. 19).
- 43.
Kim (2012, p. 399).
- 44.
Chaisse (2015, p. 563).
- 45.
Nakagawa (2007, pp. 837–867).
doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgm032.
- 46.
Salomon and Friedrich (2015, pp. 800, 837).
- 47.
Ibid.
- 48.
Ibid. 838.
- 49.
- 50.
See http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS; Bryan Cave (2015).
- 51.
Welhausen (2016, pp. 117–135).
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
New York Times (2004).
- 55.
Monbiot (2013).
- 56.
- 57.
Brown (2013, p. 1) (noting that IIAs “do indeed prevent some countries from developing or enforcing effective environmental policies”).
- 58.
See Schill (2015).
- 59.
Trakman and Sharma (2014a, b); Press Release from the Government of India, Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty (2015) http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=133411 (noting that “during the last few years, significant changes have occurred globally regarding BITs, in general, and investor-state dispute resolution mechanism in particular”).
- 60.
Tienhaara and Ranald (2011).
- 61.
- 62.
See, for instance, Gloria et al. (2016, pp. 1–36).
- 63.
IBA Subcommittee on Investment Treaty Arbitration, Report on the Subcommittee’s Investment Treaty Arbitration survey May 2016.
- 64.
WIR 2016, p. 116. For a detailed review of substantive developments see UNCTAD (2016).
- 65.
- 66.
Sri Lanka has announced its intention to move away from traditional IIAs, inter alia because of the “bitter lessons” learned from investment arbitration. See http://unctad-worldinvestmentforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Malalgoda.pdf. The same is the case with India, which substantially revised its earlier model IIA in light of the ruling against it in the White Industries arbitration. See Press Release from the Government of India, Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty (2015) http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=133411 noting that “during the last few years, significant changes have occurred globally regarding BITs, in general, and investor-state dispute resolution mechanism in particular”.
- 67.
Haftel and Thompson (2013, p. 355).
- 68.
This is the case with India, which has begun renegotiating its IIAs. See http://isds.bilaterals.org/?india-wants-new-foreign-investment&lang=en.
- 69.
- 70.
Schill (2016).
- 71.
Ibid.
- 72.
Australia for instance has faced claims concerning its tobacco regulations. See also Kim (2012, p. 399).
- 73.
See Wälde (2009, pp. 724, 737).
- 74.
Gaukrodger (2016).
- 75.
Eleni Methymaki and Antonios Tzanakopoulos (forthcoming).
- 76.
See US CAFTA-DR, Art. 10.22 (3) and 19.1(3), available at https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/freetradeagreements/cafta-dr-dominican-republic-central-america-fta/final-text; EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Art. X.27 and X.42, consolidated text available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf.
- 77.
Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People-s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
- 78.
ACIA, Art. 40(3) (“A joint decision of the Member States, declaring their interpretation of a provision of this Agreement shall be binding on a tribunal, and any decision or award issued by a tribunal must be consistent with the joint decision”); AANZ, Art. 27(3) (“A joint decision of the Parties, declaring their interpretation of a provision of this Agreement shall be binding on a tribunal, and any decision or award issued by a tribunal must be consistent with that joint decision.”).
- 79.
Measures that are non-discriminatory and that have been taken for ‘legitimate public welfare objectives’ of public health, safety, the environment, public morals or public order are excluded. See ChAFTA, Art. 9.11.5.
- 80.
ChAFTA, Arts. 9.11.5–9.11.6.
- 81.
ChAFTA, Art. 9.18.3.
- 82.
ChAFTA, Art. 9.11.8.
- 83.
See generally Waibel et al. (2010).
- 84.
Lalive and Halonen (2011, pp. 141, 154–55).
- 85.
Lalive and Halonen (2011, p. 479).
- 86.
Popova and Poon (2015, p. 223).
- 87.
Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v The Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award (15 December 2014).
- 88.
TPP, Art. 9.18.2: ‘“When the claimant submits a claim pursuant to para 1(a)(i)(B), 1(a)(i)(C), 1(b)(i)(B) or 1(b)(i)(C), the respondent may make a counterclaim in connection with the factual and legal basis of the claim or rely on a claim for the purpose of a set off against the claimant.”’
- 89.
For a review of counterclaims in Asian IIAs, see Trisha Mitra and Rahul Donde Claims and Counterclaims under Asian Multilateral Investment Treaties in: L. Choukroune (Ed.), Judging the State in International Trade and Investment Law: Modern Sovereignty, the Law and the Economics, Springer, 2016.
- 90.
See generally, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II Transparency 2011 at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/unctaddiaeia2011d6_en.pdf; Kaufmann-Kohler (2013, pp. 305, 308).
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted on 10 December 2014, opened for signature on 17 March 2015). See also UN (2014a), United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, General Assembly, 69th session, Resolution A/69/116 (18 December 2014).
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
Potestà (2013, pp. 753–770).
- 99.
See discussion of this case in Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2014).
- 100.
Ecuador v. United States, PCA Case No. 2012-5, Request for Arbitration, ¶ 1 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2011). See generally Roberts (2011, p. 1).
- 101.
In the ICSID context, grounds for annulment are specified in Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. In non-ICSID context, the grounds for review would be the same as those for international commercial arbitration, which usually exclude a full review of the merits. See generally, Fouret and Mourre (2015).
- 102.
European Commission Concept Paper, ‘Investment in the TTIP and Beyond’ 8.
- 103.
- 104.
See, for example, Article 15.19(10) of the United States–Singapore FTA, available at https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/singapore/asset_upload_file708_4036.pdf.
- 105.
India Model BIT, Art. 29.
- 106.
TPP, Art. 9.22(11).
- 107.
Sam Luttrell, ISDS in the Asia-Pacific: A Regional Snap-Shot.
- 108.
Both these treaties are awaiting domestic approvals and subsequent ratification.
- 109.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4.
- 110.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 4(4).
- 111.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 7(1).
- 112.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 12(2).
- 113.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 12(6).
- 114.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 27(6).
- 115.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 28(1).
- 116.
EU-Vietnam FTA, Art. 28(2)-(3).
- 117.
Sornarajah (2016).
- 118.
Joint statement: Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-446_en.htm.
- 119.
For instance, Canada and India are presently negotiating a ‘Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement’, as are the EU and China.
- 120.
Annex III: G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking.
References
Allee, T., and C. Peinhardt. 2010. Delegating differences: Bilateral investment treaties and bargaining over dispute resolution provisions. International Studies Quarterly 54: 1.
Allee and Clint Peinhardt. 2011. “Contingent credibility: the impact of investment treaty violations on foreign direct investment,” International Organization 63: 401–432.
Behn, Daniel, Berge Tarald Laudal, and Malcolm Langford. 2016. Poor states or poor governance? Explaining outcomes in investment treaty arbitration. Considering investment claims up to May 2016.
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie. 2014. State-state dispute settlement in investment treaties. www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/best-practices-state-state-dispute-settlement-investment-treaties.pdf.
Bland, B., and S. Donnan. 2014. Indonesia to terminate more than 60 bilateral investment treaties. Financial Times. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3755c1b2-b4e2-11e3-af92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz42JTevYOq.
Blythe, Stephen. 2013. The advantages of investor-state arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in bilateral investment treaties. The International Lawyer 47: 273–290.
Brown, Julia. 2013. International investment agreements: Regulatory chill in the face of litigious heat? Western Journal of Legal Studies 3: 1.
Bryan Cave. 2015. International investment arbitration in Asia: Year in review. www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ecb1496d-a05a-4841-a2c6-703ac8494813.
Chaisse, Julien. 2013. Assessing the exposure of Asian states to investment claims. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 6 (187): 202.
Chaisse, Julien. 2015. The shifting tectonics of international investment law—Structure and dynamics of rules and arbitration on foreign investment in the Asia-Pacific region. George Washington International Law Review 47: 563.
Chaisse, Julien., and Christian, Bellak. 2015. Navigating the expanding universe of investment treaties—Creation and use of critical index. Journal of International Economic Law 18: 79.
Daly, M.J., and T. Ahmad. 2015. The EU-Vietnam FTA: What does it all mean? What does it mean for the future? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/12/14/the-eu-vietnam-fta-what-does-it-all-mean-what-does-it-mean-for-thefuture/.
Eberhardt, Pia, et al. 2012. Profiting from injustice: How law firms, arbitrators and financiers are fuelling an investment arbitration boom. Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/profiting-from-injustice.pdf.
Fouret, Julien, and Castal Di Mourre (2015), Enforcement of investment treaty arbitration awards: A global guide. Globe Law and Business, 1st ed.
Franck, Susan, and Linsey Wylie. 2015. Predicting outcomes in investment treaty arbitration. Duke Law Journal 65: 459.
Gaukrodger, D. 2016. The legal framework applicable to joint interpretive agreements of investment treaties. OECD working papers on international investment. OECD Publishing, Paris http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm3xgt6f29w-en.
Gloria, Maria A., et al. 2016. A response to the criticism against ISDS by EFILA. Journal of International Arbitration 33: 1–36.
Haftel, Y.Z., and A. Thompson. 2013. Delayed ratification: The domestic fate of bilateral investment treaties. International Organization 67: 355.
Hsu, Locknie. 2012. Asian treaty-makers and investment treaty arbitration: Negotiating with a wary eye. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 5 (243): 256.
ICSID, 50 Years of ICSID. www.icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/ICSID%20Timeline%20-%20Featured.pdf.
Ikenson, Dan. 2014. Eight reasons to purge investor-state dispute settlement from trade agreements. www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2014/03/04/eight-reasons-to-purge-investor-state-dispute-settlement-from-trade-agreements/.
Kim, Joongi. 2012. A pivot to Asia in investor-state arbitration: The coming emergence of asian claimants. ICSID Review 27: 399.
Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle. 2013. Non-disputing state submissions in investment arbitration: Resurgence of diplomatic protection? In Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement. ed. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and others, 305, 308. www.arbitration-icca.org/media/1/13571333245800/diplomatic_protection_and_investment_arbitration_kaufmann-kohler.pdf.
Kollamparambil, Umakrishnan. 2016. Bilateral investment treaties and investor state disputes. ERSA working paper.
Lalive, P., and L. Halonen. 2011. On the availability of counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law 479.
Langford, Malcolm, et al. 2016. Storm in a teacup? The international investment regime and state backlash. In The changing practices of international law: Sovereignty, law and politics in a globalising world, ed. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tanja Aalberts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenfeld, Andreas. 2003. Investment agreements and international law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 42 (123): 129.
Malintoppi, Loretta. 2015. Is there an ‘Asian way’ for investor-state dispute resolution. KLRCA Newsletter 19: 12. http://klrca.org/downloads/newsletters/2015Q3newsletter.pdf.
MercoPress, US will vote against loans to Argentina in World Bank and IDB. http://en.mercopress.com/2011/09/29/us-will-vote-against-loans-to-argentina-in-world-bank-and-idb.
Methymaki, Eleni, and Antonios,Tzanakopoulos (forthcoming). Masters of puppets? Reassertion of control through joint investment treaty interpretation. In Reassertion of control over the investment treaty regime, ed. Andreas Kulick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2740127.
Miller, Scott, and Gregory, Hicks. Investor-state dispute settlement: A reality check. https://www.csis.org/analysis/investor-state-dispute-settlement-reality-check-working-paper.
Mitra, Trisha, and Rahul Donde (forthcoming). Claims and counterclaims under Asian multilateral investment treaties. In Judging the state in international trade and investment law: Modern sovereignty, the law and the economics, ed. Leila Choukroune. Berlin: Springer.
Monbiot, George. 2013. The real threat to the national interest from the rich and powerful. The Guardian.
Nakagawa, Junji. 2007. No more negotiated deals? settlement of trade and investment disputes in East Asia. Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL) 10: 837–867. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgm032.
New York Times. 2004. The secret trade courts. Editorial.
Nottage, Luke, and J. Romesh, Romesh Weeramantry. 2012. Investment arbitration in Asia: Five perspectives on law and practice. Arbitration International 28: 19.
Nottage, L. 2011. The rise and possible fall of investor-state arbitration in Asia: A skeptic’s view of Australia’s gillard government trade policy statement. TDM 5. www.transnational-dispute-management.com, www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1767.
Parra, Antonio. 2014. Advancing reform at ICSID. Transnational Dispute Management 11: 9.
Popova, I.C., and F. Poon. 2015. From perpetual respondent to aspiring counterclaimant? State counterclaims in the new wave of investment treaties. BCDR International Arbitration Review, Kluwer Law International 2: 223.
Potestà, M. 2013. State-to-state dispute settlement pursuant to bilateral investment treaties: Is there potential? In International courts and the development of international law: essays in honour of Tullio Treves, ed. Boschiero, N and others, 753–770. The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press.
Rachel L, Wellhausen. 2016. Recent trends in investor–State dispute settlement. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 7(1): 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv038.
Roberts, Anthea. 2011. Harvard International Law Journal 55: 1, www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/HILJ_55-1_Roberts.pdf.
Rosenberg, Charles. 2013. The intersection of international trade and international arbitration: The use of trade benefits to secure compliance with arbitral awards. Georgetown Journal of International Law 44: 503.
Schill, Stephan. 2015. Reforming investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): Conceptual framework and options for the way forward. E15 initiative Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum. www.e15initiative.org/.
Schill, Stephan. 2016. Changing geography: Prospects for Asian actors as global rule-makers in international investment law. Columbia FDI Perspectives No. 177. http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2013/10/No-177-Schill-FINAL.pdf.
Sacerdoti, Giogio. 2014. Trade and investment law: Institutional differences and substantive similarities. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 9: 4.
Salomon, Claudia, and Sandra Friedrich. 2015. Investment arbitration in East Asia and the Pacific. Journal of World Investment and Trade 16: 800, 837.
Sornarajah, M. 2016. An international investment court: Panacea or purgatory. Columbia FDI Perspectives No. 180. www.ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2013/10/No-180-Sornarajah-FINAL.pdf.
The Economist, The arbitration game. 2014.
Tienhaara, Kyla, and Patricia Ranald. 2011. Australia’s rejection of investor-state dispute settlement: Four potential contributing factors. www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/australias-rejection-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-four-potential-contributing-factors/.
Tietje, et al. 2014. The impact of investor-state-dispute settlement (ISDS) in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Study prepared for the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign affairs, The Netherlands.
Trakman, Leon, and Kunal Sharma. 2014. Indonesia’s termination of the Netherlands–Indonesia BIT: Broader implications in the Asia-Pacific? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2014/08/21/indonesias-termination-of-the-netherlands-indonesia-bit-broader-implications-in-the-asia-pacific/.
Trakman, Leon, and Kunal Sharma. 2014. Why is Indonesia terminating its bilateral investment treaties? www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/09/20/why-is-indonesia-terminating-its-bilateral-investment-treaties.
UNCHR. 2003. High commissioner for human rights, human rights, trade and investment. UN doc E/CN.4/Sub.2//2003/9, 35.
UNCTAD. 2016. Taking stock of IIA reform, 1. No: International Investment Agreement Issues Note.
UNCTAD. Investor state dispute settlement, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeia2013d2_en.pdf.
Vandevelde, Kenneth J. 2005. A brief history of international investment agreements’ (2005) 12 U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 12: 157.
Van Harten, Gus. 2011. Summary of G. Van Harten, “The use of quantitative methods to examine possible bias in investment arbitration” and “Reply” [to Franck, Garbin, and Perkins] in the Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy (2011). All Papers, Paper 33.
Van Harten, Gus. 2012. Arbitrator behaviour in asymmetrical adjudication: An empirical study of investment treaty arbitration. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 50: 1. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=ohlj.
Viñuales, J.E., and D. Bentolila. 2012. The use of alternative (non-judicial) means to enforce investment awards. In Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement: Assessing their interactions, ed. Boisson de Chazournes, L., and others. The Hague: Brill.
Waibel, M., et al. 2010. The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality. In: Michael Waibel and others (eds), The backlash against investment arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Wälde, T. 2009. Interpreting investment treaties: Experiences and examples. In International investment law for the 21st century: Essays in honour of Christopher Schreuer, ed. C. Binder and others, 724, 737. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yannaca-Small, Katia. 2008. Improving the system of investor-state dispute settlement: The OECD governments’ perspective. In Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes ed. Karl P. Sauvant and Michael Chiswick-Patterson, 223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhao, Jun, and Liu Yun. 2014. The Transparency Reform in International Investment Arbitration and China’s Reactions. Journal of Zhejiang University 44: 150–163.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Donde, R., Chaisse, J. (2017). The Future of Investor-State Arbitration: Revising the Rules?. In: Chaisse, J., Ishikawa, T., Jusoh, S. (eds) Asia's Changing International Investment Regime. International Law and the Global South. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5882-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5882-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5881-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5882-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)