1. Dispute Settlement Reform) analyzed the proposal of having a permanent body to decide investment cases instead of the current mechanism of a tribunal conformed ad hoc. Several points where discussed about that topic, for example: the funding of that permanent body, the applicable convention (New York Convention or ICSID Convention) for enforcement, and the appointment of adjudicators of that permanent body. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 'Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its resumed thirty-eighth session;its 38 th Session, the UNCITRAL Working Group III (Investor-State,2020
2. On this topic, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that the investment court system is in accordance with European Union law. The current proposal of the European Union is to have a multilateral investment court that will resolve the investment disputes between the European Union and the other signatories of free trade agreements, instead of having a different investment court for each treaty. This proposal is under discussion in the UNCITRAL Working Group III. Guillaume Croisant, 'Opinion 1/17 -The CJEU Confirms that CETA's Investment Court System is Compatible with EU Law' (Kluwer Arbitration Blog;The European Union has agreed free trade agreements with Canada (CETA),2019