Abstract
This article examines Mexico’s experience with investment arbitration, focusing on its impressive evolution. Since the adoption of North American free trade agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, Mexico has signed several bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and free trade agreements (FTAs) containing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration clauses. An analysis of these various clauses reveals that Mexico has chosen the path of pluralism, adopting various investment arbitration options in its international investment agreements. This stance on arbitration reflects the lack of a regional standard for foreign investment protection and the difficulty of finding a genuine alternative path. In the absence of such an alternative, flexibility becomes the most pragmatic option. In this sense, unlike Brazil, which has its own model agreement and is an important political force in the balance of power in international investment law, Mexico is a rule taker state. Mexico; bilateral investment treaty; free trade agreement; Latin America; dispute settlement mechanism; international investment arbitration; pluralism; rule taker.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
