Is State‐State Investment Arbitration an Old Option for Latin America?

Abstract

International arbitration is a recognized way to resolve economic confl icts. Th is article asks if state-state investment arbitration ( SSIA ) is an option for Latin America. It examines the language of investment treaty provisions, cases and arbitral awards involving states, and treatymaking practice in the region. Th e analysis shows some complementarity between the mechanisms of investor-state arbitration ( ISA ) and SSIA ; sometimes, the latter is the only option. Th is article concludes that SSIA is neither a backlash nor a more eff ective mechanism compared to ISA . SSIA constitutes an opportunity for both home and host Latin American states to balance their investment treaty commitments. I thank Ira Ryk-Lakhman, Katia Fach Gómez, Luis Felipe Viveros, Manuel Gómez, Peter Tzeng, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own.

Protection of Domestic Investors under the WTO and International Investment Regimes

“…Nothing prevents the BIT or regional trade and investment agreement from having their own state–state form of enforcement, in addition to or in lieu of the investor–state mechanism. In fact, most BITs have state–state jurisdiction clauses (Lubambo, 2016).…”

Amérique latine, l’ALBA-TCP et l’arbitrage transnational en matière d’investissement: la fondation d’une mosaïque de résistance

“…Cet instrument-type prévoit l'arbitrage interétatique comme une alternative à l'arbitrage investisseur-État. Le modèle d'accord brésilien a été présenté comme un modèle pour l'Amérique latine(Lubambo, 2016) (Monebhurrun, 2017). Il s'agit d'une stratégie particulière qui s'étend peu à peu dans et en dehors dans la région.…”