Unsatisfyingly, ISDS permits international investment law to exist in a vacuum that enables those tasked with adjudicating disputes to turn a blind eye to international humanitarian law norms.
As investor-state arbitration continues its growth as one of the most dynamic and controversial features of international investment law, developing countries must learn lessons from the decisions of arbitral tribunals on old-generation treaties.
L’initiative vise à « examiner la manière dont les traités d’investissement futurs pourraient contribuer à répondre à ces défis et comment gérer les accords existants de manière pragmatique ».
The initiative is aimed at exploring “how the investment treaties of tomorrow could help address these challenges and how to deal with existing agreements in a pragmatic way.”
The question is whether states wish to cede a significant portion of their sovereignty to ISDS tribunals, giving them the authority to decide which state measures taken in the public interest are legitimate.