{"title":"Winning and Losing in Investor–State Dispute Settlement","authors":"Tim R Samples","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As tensions between investors’ rights and sovereign power escalate, investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) has become a focal point of backlash and controversy. As a result, ISDS now embodies two opposing currents in international law: (1) the erosion of sovereignty that accompanied economic globalization, trade frameworks, and investment treaties following the Second World War and (2) more recently, reassertions of sovereignty prompted by recent backlashes against the global economic order. This article measures and evaluates outcomes of the ISDS system for sovereign participants. Using the best available data, this article contributes more detailed assessments of sovereign winners (home states of claimants) and sovereign losers (respondent states) in the ISDS system. This article also considers the distribution and the proportional impact of outcomes for sovereign participants, both of which are fundamental in the legitimacy debates surrounding the ISDS system.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"56 1","pages":"115-175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12136","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12136","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
As tensions between investors’ rights and sovereign power escalate, investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) has become a focal point of backlash and controversy. As a result, ISDS now embodies two opposing currents in international law: (1) the erosion of sovereignty that accompanied economic globalization, trade frameworks, and investment treaties following the Second World War and (2) more recently, reassertions of sovereignty prompted by recent backlashes against the global economic order. This article measures and evaluates outcomes of the ISDS system for sovereign participants. Using the best available data, this article contributes more detailed assessments of sovereign winners (home states of claimants) and sovereign losers (respondent states) in the ISDS system. This article also considers the distribution and the proportional impact of outcomes for sovereign participants, both of which are fundamental in the legitimacy debates surrounding the ISDS system.
期刊介绍：
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
