Responding to Incorrect Decision-Making in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Policy Options

Abstract Criticism of the quality of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) decision-making often focuses on inconsistency (comparing ISDS decisions), and less frequently, incorrectness (evaluating individual ISDS decisions on a standalone basis). This article situates incorrect ISDS decision-maki...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of world investment & trade 2020-06, Vol.21 (2-3), p.374-409
Main Authors: De Luca, Anna, Feldman, Mark, Paparinskis, Martins, Titi, Catharine
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Humanities and Social Sciences
Law
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Criticism of the quality of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) decision-making often focuses on inconsistency (comparing ISDS decisions), and less frequently, incorrectness (evaluating individual ISDS decisions on a standalone basis). This article situates incorrect ISDS decision-making within the broader context of public international law and develops potential policy responses, guided by three considerations. First, criticism of ISDS decision-making has been significant. Second, criticism of particular ISDS decisions, even when widespread and intense, does not necessarily establish their incorrectness. Finally, development of policy options should be informed by a broad understanding of 'incorrectness', to include instances of questionable legal analysis that cast doubt on the reliability of ISDS legal conclusions and outcomes; that approach can support not only the avoidance of incorrect ISDS decision-making in a strict sense, but also, more expansively, the achievement of correct ISDS decision-making, consisting of two core elements: correct identification and precise application of applicable law.
ISSN:1660-7112
2211-9000
DOI:10.1163/22119000-12340176