Abstract: In recent years, as economic globalization has deepened, international investment has expanded rapidly. This growth has been accompanied by a surge in investment disputes, making the reform and development of the international investment dispute settlement mechanism one of the most important topics in international investment governance. As criticisms of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the dominant mechanism for resolving international investment disputes, have intensified, the evolution of dispute settlement provisions in certain international investment agreements reveals a significant shift, with some treaties reinstating a state-centric paradigm in the design of investment dispute settlement mechanisms. This transformation has brought the role of the state back to the forefront of debate in the field of investment dispute resolution. This paper asks whether, and why, states are reclaiming a central role in investment treaty dispute settlement, as evidenced by Brazil’s Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) dispute settlement model, the Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreement (SIFA) between Angola and the European Union, and the Free Trade Agreement between the Southern Common Market and Singapore (MCSFTA). By investigating the underlying drivers behind the renewed prominence of state-led approaches, the article offers policy recommendations for the future reform of investment dispute settlement mechanisms in light of these developments.
Abstract: In recent years, as economic globalization has deepened, international investment has expanded rapidly. This growth has been accompanied by a surge in investment disputes, making the reform and development of the international investment dispute settlement mechanism one of the most important topics in international investment governance. As critici...Show More