Against Consistency in Investment Arbitration

The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice, Z. Douglas, J. Pauwelyn, and J.E. Viñuales (eds.) (OUP 2014).

King's College London Law School Research Paper No. 2013-3

20 Pages Posted: 30 Aug 2013 Last revised: 18 Jun 2015

See all articles by Thomas Schultz

Thomas Schultz

King's College London; University of Geneva; Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) - Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement (CIDS); Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

Date Written: August 30, 2013

Abstract

Consistency in decision-making is generally considered to be a good thing. It is largely considered to be a paradigm of good decision-making. Investment arbitrators often rely on this idea to cite prior cases (precedents, in a non-technical meaning), and follow some of them. But is consistency really such a good thing? Is it actually unconditionally a good thing - always and in any context a good thing? Could it not be that, in fact, the pursuit of consistency does more harm than good - not in a single case, where the question is fairly obvious, but at the level of an entire dispute resolution system? The author argues that, indeed, consistency is not an unconditional positive, just as the rule of law and law itself are not an unconditional positive. And in the context of investment arbitration, there are reasons why we may believe that the conditions for consistency to be a good thing are actually not met: in investment arbitration the pursuit of consistency may well do more harm than good.

It follows that investment arbitrators should not see themselves as law-makers, should not attempt to advance the rule of law, to consolidate rules. There is a high risk that as law-makers they do more harm than good, given that creating law, filing gaps, furthering the rule of law, pursuing predictability is not always a good thing to do. Precise, consistent rules, forming a regime that meets the requirements of the rule of law, are not inherently preferable to vague, inconsistent rules forming a regime that does not meet the standards of regulative quality which partake of the rule of law. There is nothing inherently good in furthering the rule of law.

Keywords: investment arbitration, international investment law, rule of law, jurisprudence

JEL Classification: K33

Suggested Citation

Schultz, Thomas, Against Consistency in Investment Arbitration (August 30, 2013). The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice, Z. Douglas, J. Pauwelyn, and J.E. Viñuales (eds.) (OUP 2014). ; King's College London Law School Research Paper No. 2013-3. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2318358 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2318358

Thomas Schultz (Contact Author)

King's College London ( email )

Somerset House East Wing
Strand
London, WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

University of Geneva ( email )

102 Bd Carl-Vogt
Genève, CH - 1205
Switzerland

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) - Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement (CIDS) ( email )

Villa Moynier
Rue de Lausanne 120b
Geneva, 12011
Switzerland

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies ( email )

Geneva
Switzerland

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
665
Abstract Views
5,436
rank
37,781
PlumX Metrics