Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court

Abstract

In recent years, the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system has been a subject of reform discussions triggered by several factors, amongst which includes the lack of consistency in ISDS decisions commonly rendered by arbitration tribunals. This undesirable fact places the current ISDS system in conflict with essential rule of law values such as stability, reliability, predictability, and equality - which inevitably diminish the legitimacy of the current system. Undeniably, the un-uniform investment treaties underlying ISDS decisions is a valid justification for divergent outcomes, however, the recognition that a majority of investment treaties share similar if not identical legal standards also makes the argument for consistent ISDS decisions legitimate and in fact necessary to foster the harmonious development of investment law across the network of identical treaty standards. To this end, the use of “precedent” is critical in achieving the aforesaid goal. Notably, albeit informally, the use of precedent is already a recognised practice in ISDS, yet inconsistent decisions persist. As a turning point, this article advocates that consistency in ISDS decisions can be best achieved through the “formal introduction of a system of precedent”, in “a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC)”, which is possible without jeopardizing the inherent differences contained in International Investment Agreements (IIA).