Abstract
AbstractThis article examines the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in recent mega-free trade agreement. Below, I examine the origins of the ISDS concept and outline the controversy surrounding its use in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Then, I provide a theoretical discussion that outlines both the exogenous and endogenous factors that contribute to the inclusion of ISDS provisions in international trade agreements. Focusing on the latter endogenous factors, I then argue that not all international trade agreements are the same and that, as such, it is possible to develop a typology of international trade agreement across two variables (the number of parties and relative power) that impact the appropriateness of including an ISDS provision. I test this typology against the empirical record. Finally, I discuss potential innovations to the ISDS provisions and market-based mechanisms that address the dual challenges of discrimination and expropriation that ISDS is designed to address.1
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Industrial relations
Reference47 articles.
1. U.S. Department of State. 2012. “Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment,” footnote. (Accessed on 18 May 2016) https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/101735.pdf.
2. The Innovation of Investor-State Arbitration under NAFTA Focus: Emerging Fora for International Litigation (Part 1);Legum;Harvard International Law Journal,2002
3. Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?
4. If Only Half of International Agreements Have Dispute Resolution Provisions, Which Half Needs Explaining?
5. Ratification counts: US investment treaties and FDI flows into developing countries
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献