The Conditions for Reform: a Typology of “Backlash” and Lessons for Reform in International Investment Law and Arbitration
In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and TribunalsAbstract
Understanding the “backlash” it is facing is a necessary condition for a successful reform of international investment law and arbitration. The article develops a typology of backlash in international investment law and arbitration, identifying three main tensions in the field: contractualism vs. unilateralism; economic rationality vs. political rationality; flat world view vs. diverse world view. The article claims that the reform discussion, including at the UNCITRAL level, should be informed by this backlash typology. Two main lessons may be learned, one at the methodological level and one at the substantive level: first, the reform discussion needs to be informed by the study of systems of domestic investment law and policy; second, the reform discussion needs to move beyond its Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) confines and also include reform of the substantive law and administrative procedures of States and of international treaties.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 645 | 244 | 34 |
| Full Text Views | 323 | 53 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 389 | 132 | 17 |
The Conditions for Reform: a Typology of “Backlash” and Lessons for Reform in International Investment Law and Arbitration
In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and TribunalsAbstract
Understanding the “backlash” it is facing is a necessary condition for a successful reform of international investment law and arbitration. The article develops a typology of backlash in international investment law and arbitration, identifying three main tensions in the field: contractualism vs. unilateralism; economic rationality vs. political rationality; flat world view vs. diverse world view. The article claims that the reform discussion, including at the UNCITRAL level, should be informed by this backlash typology. Two main lessons may be learned, one at the methodological level and one at the substantive level: first, the reform discussion needs to be informed by the study of systems of domestic investment law and policy; second, the reform discussion needs to move beyond its Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) confines and also include reform of the substantive law and administrative procedures of States and of international treaties.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 645 | 244 | 34 |
| Full Text Views | 323 | 53 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 389 | 132 | 17 |