Abstract
Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) are supposed to protect foreign investors against domestic policies causing “unjustified” harm. This paper scrutinizes the effects of ISDS and national treatment provisions in a two-period model where foreign investment is subject to a hold-up problem. It shows that ISDS may increase welfare, but comes with additional regulatory distortions in the first period. A national treatment provision avoids these regulatory distortions, but implies entry distortions because it makes the hold-up problem also apply to domestic firms. If the domestic regulatory framework applies to many domestic firms, a national treatment provision welfare-dominates ISDS.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.