NEW APPROACHES TO THE REFORM OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
Introduction. In light of the ongoing UN discussions over the investor-state dispute settlement reform, this article offers readers an opportunity to develop an understanding of not only the current reform process, but also of the directions of reforms and the key positions advanced by various dogma...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO)
2019-06-01
|
| Series: | Московский журнал международного права |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/296 |
| Summary: | Introduction. In light of the ongoing UN discussions over the investor-state dispute settlement reform, this article offers readers an opportunity to develop an understanding of not only the current reform process, but also of the directions of reforms and the key positions advanced by various dogmatic camps. The author reviews and analyses the most relevant quotes from the first two meetings of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions on states’ concerns as presented by four delegations from Russia, the USA, Canada, and the European Union.Materials and methods. Сonsistent with the mandate’s call for the process to be fully transparent, the recordings of the sessions are made available online. The quotes from the first two meetings (34 th and 35 th ) of the UNCITRAL Working Group sessions, therefore, constitute the main resources for this article. There are occasional references to the comments made by international lawyers who received an Observer Delegate status in the Working Group III discussions. As for the methodology, the author opt to employ popular scientific research methods.Research results. As a result of the conducted research the author offers a comprehensive overview of the delegates' positions with respect to the reform as advanced by Russian and foreign delegates, and brings forward an argument about a direct line between those positions and a prevailing doctrine on the place of international investment law within international law.Discussion and conclusions. In this article the author underscores a critical distinction in the positions towards the public features of dispute settlement such as multilateralism and transparency. The article reveals the challenge in finding a proper definition for concrete steps of a reform (or reforms), and a framework for working process. Based on the available official positions of the states, and the UNCITRAL documents, the author reaches a conclusion about a long and controversial reform process. Yet the directions of reforms are becoming increasingly clear. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0869-0049 2619-0893 |