The UK Should Include Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in Its Post-Brexit International Investment Agreements

20 Pages Posted: 28 Feb 2017 Last revised: 10 Apr 2017

See all articles by David A. Collins

David A. Collins

The City Law School, City, University of London

Date Written: February 26, 2017

Abstract

This article argues from a commercial standpoint that the United Kingdom should include Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the new International Investment Agreements (IIAs) which it concludes following its departure from the European Union. Focusing on the procedure of ISDS rather than the substantive protections afforded by IIAs, the article supports this assertion by reference to advantages engendered by ISDS from the perspective of the UK as both a capital importer and capital exporter. ISDS does not exhibit systemic bias in favour of investors or states and offers an efficient alternative to domestic courts, particularly in jurisdictions where there is weak rule of law. The UK’s own commitment to rule of law suggests that the risk of adverse claims by foreign firms through this system is minimal. The article briefly considers the two chief alternatives to ISDS in modern IIAs: the EU’s new Investment Court System and state-to-state dispute settlement, neither of which should be viewed as a suitable alternative to ISDS for the UK.

Keywords: investment arbitration, investor-state dispute settlement, international arbitration, Brexit

Suggested Citation

Collins, David A., The UK Should Include Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in Its Post-Brexit International Investment Agreements (February 26, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2924051 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2924051

David A. Collins (Contact Author)

The City Law School, City, University of London ( email )

Northampton Square
London, EC1V OHB
United Kingdom

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
218
rank
136,031
Abstract Views
782
PlumX Metrics