EU Investors versus EU States: International Arbitration of Investment Disputes

Abstract

Recent information on investor‐state dispute settlement, collected by UNCTAD, suggests that European investors are more litigious than non‐European investors. Most of the intra‐EU claims for financial compensation are directed at relatively poor respondent states in Central Europe. However, private investors win surprisingly few intra‐EU disputes. The appointment bias of arbitrators and the composition of tribunals appear to matter for the outcome of investor‐state dispute settlement.

The unsustainable political economy of investor–state dispute settlement mechanisms1

“…NAFTA, which was the key reference point for modern ISDS clauses, has been scrapped and replaced with a new treaty -the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) -which basically excludes ISDS. Negotiations over the proposed EU-US trade agreement, known as TTIP, came to a standstill due to ISDS mechanisms (Donaubauer and Nunnenkamp, 2018). The new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) does include ISDS provisions but the US has not signed this agreement.…”