Apparent Dichotomies, Covert Similarities: A Response to Joost Pauwelyn

109 AJIL Unbound 294 (2016)

Penn State Law Research Paper No. 9-2016

8 Pages Posted: 23 Apr 2016 Last revised: 9 Jun 2016

See all articles by Catherine A. Rogers

Catherine A. Rogers

Bocconi University - Department of Law; UC Law, San Francisco

Date Written: April 21, 2016

Abstract

In a recent article, Professor Joost Pauwelyn poses a perplexing question: How can it be that trade and investment are converging in their substantive “legal orders,” but diverging in terms of perceived legitimacy? Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), he argues, is in a “state of crisis” whereas WTO dispute settlement is generally regarded as “successful.” Pauwelyn’s provocative and counter-intuitive explanation for this paradox focuses on the apparent differences between the pool of decision-makers in each regime: WTO disputes are resolved by nameless, faceless, inexperienced bureaucrats who often lack legal training, whereas “investment arbitrators are typically high-powered, elite jurists” with more expertise and experience than their WTO counterparts.

In this response Essay, I challenge some of Pauwelyn’s characterizations of WTO and ISDS decision-making and his related conclusions. I then suggest that the identity of claimants (foreign investors) and nature of remedies (usually large monetary awards) -- not the identity of the decisionmakers -- are more plausible explanations for the legitimacy gap between WTO and ISDS decision-making. Accordingly, current efforts to make ISDS more like a WTO court structure are unlikely to resolve concerns.

Finally, I examine why lawyers and legal expertise are essential attributes for the adjudicators we entrust with development of an international rule of law, and how international arbitrators in particular have made important contributions to international adjudication.

Keywords: International trade, ISDS, investment arbitration, international arbitrators, investment law, WTO, CETA, BITs, bi-lateral investment treaties

Suggested Citation

Rogers, Catherine A., Apparent Dichotomies, Covert Similarities: A Response to Joost Pauwelyn (April 21, 2016). 109 AJIL Unbound 294 (2016), Penn State Law Research Paper No. 9-2016, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2768340

Catherine A. Rogers (Contact Author)

Bocconi University - Department of Law ( email )

Via Roentgen Building
20136 Milan
Italy
011 39 333 684 2267 (Phone)
011 39 02 5836 5202 (Fax)

UC Law, San Francisco ( email )

200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
83
Abstract Views
699
Rank
543,429
PlumX Metrics