Calls for investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) reform have persisted for some time. Competing calls for retaining the status quo, modifying the system, or abandoning the system altogether have each gained traction. With a drastic increase in the number of investment cases being brought, accompanied by the “mega” awards, the international community has had to respond.
One of the most prominent global initiatives to address these reforms has been the UNCITRAL Working Group III (“WGIII”) process. WGIII’s discussions began in 2017 and, as recently announced, WGIII plans to conclude its reform process by 2025. The question that arises is whether this 8-year reform process will meaningfully address the calls for reform. This is a significant question because if, after undertaking such a long and detailed reform process, criticisms on the basic ideas of ISDS persist, the international community has to consider whether the transaction cost was worth it at all.
Content Authorship and Sources
Dr. Kabir Duggal
Arbitration and Mediation Panelist at BIAMC
Senior International Arbitration Advisor at Arnold and Porter/Columbia Law School
Disclaimer: The articles published on the BIAMC platform are authored by members of the BIAMC Arbitration Panellist and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bali International Arbitration & Mediation Center (BIAMC). BIAMC is not responsible for the content of the articles and does not provide any warranty as to their accuracy or completeness. The responsibility for the content, opinions expressed, and any reputational impacts thereof rests solely with the individual authors. BIAMC serves solely as a platform to showcase the works of these authors. Readers are encouraged to approach each article with a discerning view and to consider the context and perspective of the individual author.