Recent trends in investor-state dispute settlement

64Citations
Citations of this article
86Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Systematic data about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are increasingly important to our understanding of modern relations between states and multinational corporations. This article updates Susan Franck's 'Empirically Evaluating Claims about Investment Treaty Arbitration' (2007) and complements Thomas Schultz and Cedric Dupont's 'Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study' (2015). I use a political science lens to explore data on the modern incarnation of ISDS, from 1990 to 2014. The article addresses topics including: (i) the industry, nationality and other characteristics of arbitration filers; (ii) win, loss, settlement and annulment rates; and (iii) trends in amounts claimed and amounts awarded. It also serves to introduce the accompanying data set. A central takeaway is that users of the de facto ISDS regime are incredibly diverse. Nonetheless, both proponents and detractors of ISDS may find fodder for their positions in recent developments.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wellhausen, R. L. (2016). Recent trends in investor-state dispute settlement. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 7(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv038

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free