Investor Presentaiton
169
III. OUTLOOK AND POLICY OPTIONS
With over 3,000 investment treaties and over 500 known ISDS
cases to date, States have accumulated the necessary mass of
experience to draw general conclusions regarding the design and
functioning of the ISDS mechanism. Given the concerns that the
system is not fully meeting its overall objective of contributing to
the creation of a stable and predictable environment for foreign
investors and host States, policy makers may wish to explore
various avenues to achieve short-, medium- and longer-term goals.
As outlined in WIR 2013, these avenues can be broadly
categorized as follows:
208
(1) Tailoring the existing system through individual IIAS;
(2) Limiting investor access to ISDS;
(3) Introducing an appeals facility;
(4) Creating a standing international investment court; and
(5) Promoting alternative dispute resolution and dispute
prevention policies.
Section III.A addresses options (1) and (2) jointly as both of them
contemplate improvements to the ISDS system through individual
IIAS. Section III.B discusses options (3) and (4), both of which
require changes to the institutional structure of the ISDS system.
Finally, section III.C touches upon alternative dispute resolution and
dispute prevention policies.
A. Improving ISDS treaty provisions
Before turning to the ISDS mechanism itself, it should be
reiterated that it does not exist in a vacuum, but rather serves as an
enforcement tool for substantive commitments undertaken by States
in IIAS. Provisions delineating the general scope of the IIA, as well
subject to ISDS. Such reading would, however, contradict Article 7(2).
(Emphasis added).
208 UNCTAD, 2013b, pp.
112-117.
UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements IIView entire presentation