Designing Investment Dispute Settlement à la Carte: Insights from Comparative Institutional Design Analysis

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW

Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Pub Date : 2020-02-07 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3519259

S. Schill, G. Vidigal

{"title":"Designing Investment Dispute Settlement à la Carte: Insights from Comparative Institutional Design Analysis","authors":"S. Schill, G. Vidigal","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3519259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe multilateral expression of the desire to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) obscures the diverging preferences states have in respect of which future dispute settlement model to adopt. In order to garner broad acceptability, this article proposes that the reformed system could be designed as “dispute settlement à la carte”, with a Multilateral Investment Court coexisting with other forms of dispute resolution under the umbrella of one multilateral institution. With a view to showing that such a system is feasible, this article draws on comparative institutional design analysis, that is, a comparative assessment of dispute settlement design features across different international dispute settlement systems. This approach helps to explore what institutional design features are a useful source of inspiration for a future investment dispute settlement system that preserves flexibility for states in the choice of their preferred means of adjudication, while safeguarding legal certainty and promoting coherence in investment dispute settlement.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3519259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 11

Abstract

The multilateral expression of the desire to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) obscures the diverging preferences states have in respect of which future dispute settlement model to adopt. In order to garner broad acceptability, this article proposes that the reformed system could be designed as “dispute settlement à la carte”, with a Multilateral Investment Court coexisting with other forms of dispute resolution under the umbrella of one multilateral institution. With a view to showing that such a system is feasible, this article draws on comparative institutional design analysis, that is, a comparative assessment of dispute settlement design features across different international dispute settlement systems. This approach helps to explore what institutional design features are a useful source of inspiration for a future investment dispute settlement system that preserves flexibility for states in the choice of their preferred means of adjudication, while safeguarding legal certainty and promoting coherence in investment dispute settlement.

查看原文本刊更多论文

从比较制度设计分析看卡特尔的投资争端解决

联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）多边表达了改革投资者与国家争端解决的愿望，这掩盖了各国在未来采用哪种争端解决模式方面的不同偏好。为了获得广泛的接受，本文建议，改革后的制度可以设计为“按单解决争端”，在一个多边机构的保护伞下，多边投资法院与其他形式的争端解决共存。为了表明这种制度是可行的，本文借鉴了比较制度设计分析，即对不同国际争端解决制度的争端解决设计特征进行比较评估。这种方法有助于探索哪些制度设计特征是未来投资争端解决系统的有用灵感来源，该系统为各国在选择其首选裁决手段方面保持灵活性，同时保障法律确定性并促进投资争端解决的一致性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals LAW-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

40.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.