Recent Trends in Investor–State Dispute Settlement

Abstract

Systematic data about investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) are increasingly important to our understanding of modern relations between states and multinational corporations. This article updates Susan Franck’s ‘Empirically Evaluating Claims about Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2007) and complements Thomas Schultz and Cedric Dupont’s ‘Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study’ (2015). I use a political science lens to explore data on the modern incarnation of ISDS, from 1990 to 2014. The article addresses topics including: (i) the industry, nationality and other characteristics of arbitration filers; (ii) win, loss, settlement and annulment rates; and (iii) trends in amounts claimed and amounts awarded. It also serves to introduce the accompanying data set. A central takeaway is that users of the de facto ISDS regime are incredibly diverse. Nonetheless, both proponents and detractors of ISDS may find fodder for their positions in recent developments.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 129 citations exist upstream.