ICSID - Losing its Appeal?

Abstract

no international arbitration centre can lay claim to such distinguished origins as the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). There are some centres of arbitration, such as those established in London or Paris, which owe their existence primarily to merchants and traders, with a common interest in providing for the speedy and relatively informal resolution of disputes between them. There are other, more recent arbitration centres, such as those now established in Hong Kong or British Columbia, which owe their existence to the initiative of a particular national or state government, prepared to provide a convenient forum for the settlement of international disputes – and to benefit from the prestige and business which such a forum generates. ICSID, by contrast, owes its existence to an international treaty, sponsored by the World Bank and adopted by an impressive number of national governments: this treaty is the Washington Convention of 1965, which entered into force on 14 October 19661. The rules2 which govern ICSID Tribunals are carefully drawn, so as to blend the procedures of the common law with those of the civil law. Its national panels of arbitrators are distinguished – although perhaps a little short of practising lawyers. Anyone appointed as an ICSID arbitrator – who need not necessarily be a member of one of the national panels – enjoys certain diplomatic privileges in the performance of his functions.3 The secretariat of ICSID forms part of the international civil service, with its headquarters at the World Bank in Washington. The clients of ICSID are states or the agencies of states – and private individuals or corporations who are prepared to invest money, goods or services in those states or agencies. This ‘investment’ is made against a guarantee that any dispute which may arise …