Welcome to Francis Academic Press

Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 2023, 6(7); doi: 10.25236/AJHSS.2023.060716.

Investment Court System: A Cure for the ‘Broken’ ISDS


Xiaoyu Yang

Corresponding Author:
Xiaoyu Yang

King's College London, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, 010010, China


This paper discusses the EU Commission’s proposal to establish a ground-breaking, two-tier Investment Court System in the Section 3 of the Commission’ draft TTIP to address concerns about systemic deficiencies looming behind the current ISDS (mainly lack of legitimacy, consistency and transparency) by bringing the private model of investment dispute settlement back to the public domain, as well as providing for an appellate mechanism to harmonise inconsistency in rulings and correct erroneous decisions. This undoubtedly contributes to develop a more coherent investment arbitration body of law, restoring predictability and faith in investment treaty regime, and therefore boosts foreign investments and economic growth.


Investor-State Dispute Settlement; Investment Court System; Arbitration; TTIP

Cite This Paper

Xiaoyu Yang. Investment Court System: A Cure for the ‘Broken’ ISDS. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2023) Vol. 6, Issue 7: 91-95. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2023.060716.


[1] Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other State [Z], 1966. https://icsid.worldbank.org/rules-regulations/convention.

[2] European Commission, ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – Trade in Services, Investment and E-Commerce – Chapter II Investment’ [Z], 2015. https: // policy. trade. ec. europa. eu/ eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en.

[3] CME Czech Republic B.V. v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Case, Final Award [Z], 2003. https: // www.italaw.com/cases/281.

[4] CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Annulment Decision [Z], 2007. https://www.italaw.com/cases/288.

[5] Ronald S. Lauder V. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Case, Final Award [Z], 2001. https: // www. italaw.com/cases/610.

[6] Saipem S.p.A v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No ARB/05/7, Award [Z], 2009. https://www.italaw.com/cases/951.

[7] The European Union, Possible Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.145) [Z], 2018. https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/3/investor-state.

[8] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Sequel [Z], 2014. https://unctad.org/publication/investor-state-dispute-settlement-sequel.

[9] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III, Possible Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.142) [Z], 2017. https: // uncitral. un. org/ en/ working_groups/3/investor-state.

[10] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Transparency: A Sequel [Z], 2012. https://unctad.org/publication/transparency.

[11] American Society of International Law (ASIL) and International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), Report of the ASIL-ICCA Joint Task Force on Issue Conflicts in Investor-State Arbitration [Z], 2016 https: // cdn. arbitration- icca. org/ s3fs-public/ document/ media _ document/ asil-icca_report_final_5_april_final_for_ridderprint.pdf.

[12] Franck S. D. The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions [J]. Fordham Law Review, 2005, 73(4):1521-1626.

[13] Gantz D. A. An Appellate Mechanism for Review of Arbitral Decisions in Investor-State Disputes: Prospects and Challenges [J]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2006, 39(1):39-76.

[14] Harten G. V. & M. Loughlin. Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law [J]. The European Journal of International Law, 2006, 17(1):121-150. 

[15] Harten G V. Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007: 159

[16] Kahale G II. Rethinking ISDS [J]. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 2018, 44(1):11-50.

[17] Korzun V. The Right to Regulate in Investor-State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Regulatory Carve-outs [J].Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2017, 50(2): 355-414.

[18] Lévesque C. The European Commission Proposal for an Investment Court System: Out With the Old, In With the New, Center for International Governance Innovation, Investor-State Arbitration Series Paper No.10, 2016.

[19] Roberts A. Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System [J]. American Journal of International Law, 2013, 107(1):45-94.  

[20] Steger Debra. Enhancing the Legitimacy of International Investment Law by Establishing an Appellate Mechanism, Improving International Investment Agreements, Armand de Mestral & Céline Lévesque (eds), Routledge, 2012, 257-264. https: // papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm? Abstract _ id=2223714

[21] Tams C. J. An Appealing Option? The Debate about an ICSID Appellate Structure, Essays in Transnational Economic Law Working Paper No. 57, 2006. https: // papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm?abstract_id=1413694