Conclusions and Recommendations

Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler,Michele Potestà

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44164-7_5

Abstract

AbstractIn this conclusive chapter, the authors discuss how in certain areas of interactions between domestic courts and international investment tribunals, the “division of labor” between the two types of dispute settlement bodies is not always optimal, with the result that inefficiencies burden the system. In these areas, there is a need for improvement by providing for a more fruitful allocation of tasks among domestic and international courts and tribunals, whatever form the latter may take.

Highlights

This study has sought to analyze the relationship between national and international 213 courts in the field of foreign investment protection as it arises from the extensive investment treaty framework built by States over the last five decades. It has suggested possible modes for regulating jurisdictional interactions under various dispute settlement scenarios that may emerge in the coming years
While the attraction of foreign capital and the protection of nationals investing abroad remain notable objectives for many States, they must be coordinated with sustainable development goals, which require strong policies for the protection of the environment, public health, human rights, among other public goods
The enforcement of these policies may well require adjustments in the balance between investment protection and regulatory powers, and a recalibration of the substantive standards can already be observed in many recent treaties

Summary

Introduction

This study has sought to analyze the relationship between national and international 213 courts in the field of foreign investment protection as it arises from the extensive investment treaty framework built by States over the last five decades. It has suggested possible modes for regulating jurisdictional interactions under various dispute settlement scenarios that may emerge in the coming years.

Results

Conclusion