Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Lessons from International Uniform Law
This article argues that significant improvements in the quality and consistency of decision-making in investor-state arbitration can be achieved without taking such drastic (and possibly unachievable) steps as creating a global appellate body or standing international investment court, or enacting a new treaty that codifies the substantive obligations of international investment law for all signatory states. The article draws on the experience of the international uniform law movement to suggest realistic and achievable steps that could nevertheless be effective.Although investor-state arbitration and uniform law are not entirely analogous, they do share some important similarities. In particular, they share the same basic goal (to create a fair, even, and predictable playing field for private relationships that cross borders) and the same basic challenge (how to deliver that degree of consistency without the factors that normally stabilize adjudication in national court systems, such as court hierarchies and a shared domestic legal culture).This article is organized around three “questions asked” with respect to investor-state dispute settlement. For each, it describes the “answers” yielded by the experience of the international uniform law movement, and proposes how the insights gained might be put into practice in investor-state arbitration. The first two questions are doctrinal in character: what degree of consistency between investment tribunals should be the goal? and what should be the role of precedent in a decentralized, non-hierarchical interpretive community? On both of these issues, the international uniform law literature provides doctrines that are normatively attractive and that can feasibly be adapted to the international investment law context. The third question is more practical: which non-binding aids to interpretation are most effective in promoting quality and consistency? A wide range of interpretive aids exist for various international uniform law instruments, providing an opportunity to identify best practices. In general, the international uniform law experience shows that substantial improvements in consistency and quality of decision-making can be realized even without the establishment of centralized administrative or appellate bodies or the enactment of new treaty regimes.
The Application of Informal International Instruments Before Domestic Courts
The rigidity associated with formal international law has induced states and international organizations to resort to declarations, comments, guidelines, and other “informal” international instruments. Despite their informality, many of these non-treaty instruments have prompted actions at the domestic level, including before domestic courts. This article analyzes on what basis domestic courts apply informal international instruments. Given that the “bindingness” is not always available as an explanatory factor, the normative basis for giving effect to informal instruments has to be found in the persuasiveness of instruments. Yet, what makes a particular instrument persuasive in the eyes of a domestic court remains unclear. The uncertainty in the notion of persuasiveness on the one hand empowers domestic courts in the development of international norms. On the other hand, the uncertainty renders unstable the legitimacy of judicial engagement and generates the varied judicial amenability to informal international instruments.
Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons
Recalling the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, as well as the standards already set for social progress in the constitutions, conventions, recommendations and resolutions of the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund and other organizations concerned,