Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court

Afolabi Adekemi

doi:10.5771/1435-439X-2021-4-663

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 513–514 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 513–514
- 515–560 Cross‑Border Mediation: Towards a Balanced Framework for Cross‑Border Dispute Resolution in the European Union Martin Senftl Martin Senftl 515–560
- 561–616 Europäischer Rechtsstaat als Spielball der EU-Institutionen? Zum Umgang mit der Haushaltskonditionalität am Beispiel der Rechtsstaatlichkeitsverletzungen in Polen und Ungarn Uta Stäsche Uta Stäsche 561–616
- 617–662 Direktklagemöglichkeiten gegen Beschlüsse des Europäischen Datenschutzausschusses Christoph Herrmann, Simon A. Miller Christoph Herrmann, Simon A. Miller 617–662
- 663–682 Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court Afolabi Adekemi Afolabi Adekemi 663–682
- 683–719 Die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft – Rechtliche Einordnung der ersten supranationalen Strafverfolgungsbehörde Lorenz Strauch Lorenz Strauch 683–719
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY Access

ZEuS Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien , page 663 - 682

Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court

Autoren

Afolabi Adekemi

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/1435-439X-2021-4-663
- ISSN: 1435-439X
- ISSN online: 2942-3589
Abstract

In recent years, the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system has been a subject of reform discussions triggered by several factors, amongst which includes the lack of consistency in ISDS decisions commonly rendered by arbitration tribunals. This undesirable fact places the current ISDS system in conflict with essential rule of law values such as stability, reliability, predictability, and equality - which inevitably diminish the legitimacy of the current system. Undeniably, the un-uniform investment treaties underlying ISDS decisions is a valid justification for divergent outcomes, however, the recognition that a majority of investment treaties share similar if not identical legal standards also makes the argument for consistent ISDS decisions legitimate and in fact necessary to foster the harmonious development of investment law across the network of identical treaty standards. To this end, the use of “precedent” is critical in achieving the aforesaid goal. Notably, albeit informally, the use of precedent is already a recognised practice in ISDS, yet inconsistent decisions persist. As a turning point, this article advocates that consistency in ISDS decisions can be best achieved through the “formal introduction of a system of precedent”, in “a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC)”, which is possible without jeopardizing the inherent differences contained in International Investment Agreements (IIA).
Share