Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Contesting the injustice of a global regime: ideological bias in investment treaty arbitration
This thesis explores the issue of perceived bias in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. It conceptualizes the political and procedural critique of the ISDS system. It focuses on the hybrid nature of the system perceived as being a form of public law adjudication while empowering the...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
AUC Knowledge Fountain
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This thesis explores the issue of perceived bias in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. It conceptualizes the political and procedural critique of the ISDS system. It focuses on the hybrid nature of the system perceived as being a form of public law adjudication while empowering the interests of private corporations over states’ sovereignty. Moreover, it addresses the procedural critique of the system represented in the problem of party appointment and the moral hazard of arbitrators. It provides an empirical analysis of case law to show how the interpretation of the rule of law differs according to the ideologies of arbitrators. Following, it analyzes the reform proposals to establish a multilateral investment court in order to curb the illegitimacy problems of the ITA system and concludes that such a proposal does not provide an adequate solution to these issues. |
|---|