Who's Afraid of Reform? Beware the Risk of Fragmentation

Abstract

With multilateral negotiations to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) now underway, it is legitimate to wonder about the outcome. Many seem to hope for a single, global reform, but that may be unrealistic in the near future. Indeed, the article by Sergio Puig and Gregory Shaffer and the essay by Anthea Roberts both suggest that states are pursuing a wide range of changes to the current system, some of which are incompatible with one another. A number of states prefer investment arbitration. Others favor an investment court. Still others reject international dispute settlement altogether. In this essay, I identify a collection of these options and argue that their number and variety, combined with the intensity of state preferences on the matter of ISDS reform, are likely to preclude a multilateral solution for the foreseeable future and lead to continued fragmentation.

Keywords: investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), international investment court, investment court system (ICS), Brazilian CFIAs, fragmentation of international law, multilateral investment court (MIC), UNCITRAL multilateral reform negotiations Working Group III

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