Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Abstract

AbstractWith increasing international capital flows across borders, investment disputes between investors and their host countries are inevitable. Thus, Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has become an important way to settle the related investment disputes. This chapter will delve into the ISDS, including its evolution, status quo and current major features. Moreover, it will present the general process of current ISDS arbitration and analyze two typical examples, i.e. CMS versus Argentina and Ping An versus Belgium to demonstrate that the ISDS has many shortcomings, thus facing severe challenges. Under this circumstance, new models are put forward to reform the ISDS. Therefore, this chapter will also introduce briefly the current four main models: the new rules advocated by ICSID, the new mechanism discussed by UNCITRAL, the “Investment Court System” (ICS) proposed by the EU, and Brazil’s hybrid approach to investment dispute settlement. Last but not least, the chapter will explore the influence of ISDS to China from three aspects: first, the application of ISDS in China, including the history of China’s participation in international ISDS and the development and practice of ISDS in China; second, the trend and impact of international disputes in the post-pandemic era and third, suggestions on China’s policies to improve ISDS in the post-pandemic era from both macroscopic and microscopic perspectives, which are significant for China to grasp the initiative of the ISDS.