Journals / Regesta / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

BACKLASH AGAINST INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (ISDS) AND ITS REFORM MOVEMENT

YATIRIMCI-DEVLET UYUŞMAZLIK ÇÖZÜM YOLUNA TEPKİLER VE BU DOĞRULTUDA GERÇEKLEŞTİRİLEN REFORM HAREKETİ

Journal
Regesta
Pages
153–184
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is seemed to be that the system was construed on a structure that does not separate commercial disputes and investor-state disputes, and so it can be said that the mechanism ignores to guarantee the public interest, which is a vital feature in investor-state disputes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The most debated topic of contention in international investment law of the last decades has been observed as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The main purpose underlying this alternative mechanism is to solve the disputes between the safeguard of foreign investors from the host state’s instability and the state’s sovereignty.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is seemed to be that the system was construed on a structure that does not separate commercial disputes and investor-state disputes, and so it can be said that the mechanism ignores to guarantee the public interest, which is a vital feature in investor-state disputes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The most debated topic of contention in international investment law of the last decades has been observed as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The main purpose underlying this alternative mechanism is to solve the disputes between the safeguard of foreign investors from the host state’s instability and the state’s sovereignty. It is an unconcealable fact that the current regime is unguarded to be abused and so under threat since it is not designed to find the balance between foreign investors rights and restricting the states` sovereignty rights by valuing the public interest above. It is seemed to be that the system was construed on a structure that does not separate commercial disputes and investor-state disputes, and so it can be said that the mechanism ignores to guarantee the public interest, which is a vital feature in investor-state disputes.

Özet

Son yıllarda uluslararası yatırım hukukunda en çok ele alınan tartışma konusunun Yatırımcı-Devlet Uyuşmazlık Çözümü olduğu gözlenmektedir. Bu alternatif mekanizmanın temel amacı, yabancı yatırımcıların ev sahibi devletin istikrarsızlığından korunmasının sağlanması ile ev sahibi devletin egemenlik hakları arasındaki menfaat çatışmasından doğacak uyuşmazlıkları çözümlemektir. Mevcut rejimin, yabancı yatırımcı hakları ile ev sahibi devletlerin egemenlik haklarının kısıtlanması arasındaki dengeyi sağlayarak, kamu menfaatini üstün tutmak üzere tasarlanmaması nedeniyle suiistimal edilmeye açık ve bu nedenle de tehdit altında olduğu saklanamaz bir gerçektir. Bu uyuşmazlık çözüm sisteminin ticari ihtilafları ve yatırımcı-devlet ihtilaflarını birbirinden ayırmayan bir yapıya sahip olması, yatırımcı-devlet ihtilaflarında, aynı zamanda kamu yararını garanti altına alma gereğinin görmezden gelinmesine neden olmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YALABIK, F. T. (2022). BACKLASH AGAINST INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (ISDS) AND ITS REFORM MOVEMENT. Regesta, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 153–184. https://ajindex.com/articles/588806

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Books Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds), Special Issue: From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to a Multilateral Investment Court, European Yearbook of International Economic Law (2nd edn Springer 2020)
  2. Levashova Y, The Right of States to Regulate in International Investment Law: The Search for Balance Between Public Interest and Fair and Equitable Treatment, International Arbitration Law Library, Volume 50 (Kluwer Law International 2019) Articles Abula M, “Investor State Arbitration as Part of EU’s Judicial System” (2018) 2 ECLIC 687 Alvarez G M, et al, “A Response to the Criticism Against ISDS by EFILA” (2016) 33 (1) Journal of International Arbitration 1 Anderson A, “Saving Private ISDS: The Case for Hardening Ethical Guidelines and Systematizing Conflicts Checks” (2018) 49 Geo J Int’l L 1143 Arcuri A and Montanaro F, “Justice for All? Protecting the Public Interest in Investment Treaties” (2018) 59 B.C. L. Rev. 2791 Bastin L, “The Amicus Curiae in Investor-State Arbitration” (2012) 1 (3) CJICL 208 Bjorklund A K, “The Legitimacy of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes” in N. Grossman, H. Cohen, A. Follesdal, G. Ulfstein (eds.), Legitimacy and International Courts (Studies on International Courts and Tribunals (CUP 2018) Boralessa A, “The Limitations of Party Autonomy in ICSID” (2004) 15 American Review of International Arbitration 253 Bungenberg M, “The Multilateral Investment Court- Royal Road or Dead End for the EU Legal Order?” (2019) 5 IBLJ 471 Calamita N J, “The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime” (2017) 18 Journal of World Investment & Trade 604 Choudhury B, Recapturing Public Power: Is Investment Arbitration’s Engagement of the Public Interest Contributing to the Democratic Deficit? (2008) 41 VAND J TRANSNAT’L L 775 Dahlan M R and Kumberg W V, “Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reconceptionalized: Regulation of Disputes, Standards and Mediation” (2018) 18 Pepp Disp Resol LJ 467 Dietz T, Dotzauer M and Cohen E S, “The Legitimacy Crisis of Investor-State Arbitration and the New EU Investment Court System” (2019) 26 (4) Review of International Political Economy 749 Dimitropoulos G, “National Soverignty and International Investment Law: Sovereignty Reassertion and Prospects of Reform” (2020) 21 Journal of World Investment &Trade 71 Echandi R, “The Debate on Treaty-Based Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Empirical Evidence (1987-2017) and Policy I