Rebalancing Investment Treaties and Investor-State Arbitration: Two Approaches

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This essay reviews two books suggesting how international investment law may be recalibrated to balance the interests of foreign investors and host states. Poulsen’s book draws mainly on empirical research to argue that developing states displayed ‘bounded rationality’ when rushing to sign up to investment treaties incorporating pro-investor protections, such investor-state arbitration. Although mainly descriptive, it sketches potential reforms of the investment treaty system to achieve a more rational balance in favour of host states. By contrast, drawing on doctrinal analysis but with a keen awareness of the institutional underpinnings of international investment law and arguably analogous fields, the book by Henckels focuses on what arbitrators and commentators can do to extend a tendency to interpret substantive protections even within existing investment treaties in a more balanced way. She urges more consistent application of multi-layered ‘proportionality’ analysis, combined with principled ‘deference’ to regulatory decision-making by host states.

Rebalancing Investment Treaties and Investor-State Arbitration: Two Approaches

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade

Sections

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 29 29 4
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0