Non-Adjudicatory State-State Mechanisms in Investment Dispute Prevention and Dispute Settlement: Joint Interpretations, Filters and Focal Points

in Hervé Ascensio, Nitish Monebhurrun and Catharine Titi (eds), International Investment Law, Brazilian Journal of International Law: Special Issue 14 (2), 2017

18 Pages Posted: 28 Jul 2017 Last revised: 10 Apr 2020

See all articles by Catharine Titi

Catharine Titi

CNRS; University Paris II Panthéon-Assas

Date Written: July 25, 2017

Abstract

The last 30 years in the history of international investment law witnessed the emergence of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) as the definitive method for the resolution of investment disputes, and the expanding role of the investor in the same. Investment dispute settlement has become largely synonymous with a system that involves an investor, often private entity, in international arbitration against its host state. States, in this same setting, are relegated to the role of respondent. But despite the predominant role of the investor, some mechanisms involving both states (host state and home state of the investor) do exist. Some of these mechanisms, such as state-state dispute settlement and binding interpretations, have been used for years. Others, such as national contact points or ombudsmen, are newer. As investment law enters a new era of reflection with the functioning of the current ISDS machinery at its centre, some of the efforts at reforming international investment law focus on enhancing the role of the state in investment dispute settlement and add to the popularity of some of these mechanisms. The article critically explores three ‘soft’ non-adjudicatory approaches to the prevention or resolution of investment disputes that belong to the sphere of state-to-state procedures and have gained currency in recent years: joint interpretive statements, including subsequent agreement or practice under general public international law and clarifications through diplomatic notes and periodic review of treaty content; filter mechanisms; and focal points or ombudsmen.

Keywords: international investment law, focal points, ombudsmen, investment ombudsman, national contact points, filters, international investment agreements, binding interpretations, Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, joint interpretive statements, NAFTA Free Trade Commission, CETA

JEL Classification: F02, F13, F21, F53, K41, K39, K40, K10, K33, K49, K12, K19, K20, K29, H70, E22, H87, F50, F52

Suggested Citation

Titi, Catharine, Non-Adjudicatory State-State Mechanisms in Investment Dispute Prevention and Dispute Settlement: Joint Interpretations, Filters and Focal Points (July 25, 2017). in Hervé Ascensio, Nitish Monebhurrun and Catharine Titi (eds), International Investment Law, Brazilian Journal of International Law: Special Issue 14 (2), 2017 , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3008733

University Paris II Panthéon-Assas ( email )

CERSA, 12 place du Panthéon
Paris, 75005
France

HOME PAGE: http://catharinetiti.com

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
121
Abstract Views
803
Rank
462,150
PlumX Metrics