Abstract
An investor has a choice in submitting a dispute to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration. Under most bilateral or multilateral treaties, the investor as the claimant can choose between different forms of institutional and non-institutional arbitration. The investor has a like choice, at least in theory, whether initially to consent to an ICSID arbitration clause in a concession agreement or other investment contract with the host State, as distinct from other forms of international arbitration. Increasingly, over the last few years, it is clear that many claimant investors are deliberately not choosing ICSID arbitration, preferring non-institutional United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) arbitration, in particular, and even the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for investor-State disputes.Keywords: bilateral investment treaty (BIT); International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); investor-State disputes; multilateral treaties; Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC); UNCITRAL arbitration
Published Version
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