Investor Presentaiton

180 INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: A SEQUEL Claims by investors on their own behalf and on behalf of an enterprise 211 not act as counsel can hear cases under the IIA. The disadvantage of this proposal appears to be primarily in its restrictiveness; only well- established arbitrators or those with alternative employment, such as academics, could likely afford to give up counsel work altogether; more junior and potentially more diverse candidates would likely be foreclosed by financial necessity from serving on such panels. A second option would be to adopt more precise guidelines about arbitrator disclosure requirements in order to identify and forestall issue conflicts. More onerous disclosure requirements in early stages of an arbitration would facilitate a challenge based on ICSID's requirement that an arbitrator's lack of appropriate qualities be “manifest", and help identify such conflicts before the arbitration advances towards the final stages. 211 Most IIAs permit ISDS claims to be submitted by investors; in many cases they are the only permissible claimants. However, where an investor owns or controls an enterprise in the host State, an IIA may allow the enterprise to bring ISDS claims in its own name or may allow the investor to bring claims on behalf of such enterprise. The identity of the claimant may have a significant effect on the calculation of damages: if an investment seeks and recovers damages, they will be calculated based on the damage to the investment (enterprise) itself. If an investor Hwang and Lim, 2011. UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements II

View entire presentation