Abstract
The effectiveness and utility of diplomatic protection as a core mechanism for the traditional protection of investors’ interests has been challenged with the rise of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. While diplomatic protection remains advantageous in some cases, particularly in investment treaties without arbitration clauses, this essay analyses its limitations in terms of politicisation, high costs, inefficiency and lack of investor control. In contrast, the investment treaty arbitration mechanism offers a more rapid, independent and predictable means of dispute resolution. This essay concludes that diplomatic protection, while not completely obsolete, is no longer the most attractive instrument in modern international investment protection and is gradually being transformed into a complementary tool.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
