Designing a Multilateral Investment Court: Blueprints for a New Route in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Andrés Eduardo Alvarado Garzón

doi:10.5771/1435-439X-2019-3-477

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 335–336 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 335–336
- 337–348 The UN Concept of the Rule of Law August Reinisch August Reinisch 337–348
- 349–368 Challenges for the Rule of Law in the WTO Michael Hahn Michael Hahn 349–368
- 369–382 Rule of Law Notions in Human Rights Law Ursula Kriebaum Ursula Kriebaum 369–382
- 383–406 Rule of Law in the EU Legal Order Marc Bungenberg, Angshuman Hazarika Marc Bungenberg, Angshuman Hazarika 383–406
- 407–428 ICMA, ISDA, Sovereign Debt Restructuring and the Rule of Law Marcin Menkes Marcin Menkes 407–428
- 429–476 Europarechtliche Fragen der deutschen Investitionskontrolle Christoph Herrmann Christoph Herrmann 429–476
- 477–502 Designing a Multilateral Investment Court: Blueprints for a New Route in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Andrés Eduardo Alvarado Garzón Andrés Eduardo Alvarado Garzón 477–502
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY Access

ZEuS Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien , page 477 - 502

Designing a Multilateral Investment Court: Blueprints for a New Route in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Autoren

Andrés Eduardo Alvarado Garzón

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/1435-439X-2019-3-477
- ISSN: 1435-439X
- ISSN online: 2942-3589
Abstract

Criticisms to investment arbitration persist and currently the discussions pertaining possible reforms to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) are being held on a multilateral level at UNCITRAL. Among the options, a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) stands out, since it would mark a new route in international investment law. Although the European Union has laid the groundwork for a future MIC by means of new investment agreements, some states remain reluctant to it. In any event, should the MIC be chosen as the new mechanism to solve investment disputes, careful consideration to its basic features must be given, particularly, those aimed to overcome the shortfalls of investment arbitration. A permanent body of adjudicators, an appeal mechanism, transparency and an explicit right to regulate might be indispensable to achieve the desired result. Certainly, an agreement to establish an MIC will not be easy to achieve, however, the time has never been more appropriate to engage in a comprehensive reform.
Share