Reform Options for ISDS

The document argues that ISDS is an asymmetrical system that often undermines state sovereignty and public interest. It suggests reforms including the multilateral termination of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), allowing state counterclaims, creating 'public interest carve-outs' to protect the right to regulate, implementing 'clean hands' clauses to bar bad-actor investors, requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, and granting third parties full legal standing in proceedings.

• The document suggests that states could use a multilateral instrument to coordinate the termination of existing bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or withdraw consent to ISDS, which would be less burdensome than renegotiating treaties individually.
• The author proposes allowing state counterclaims in ISDS to correct an asymmetrical system where investors have rights without obligations, arguing this would improve efficiency, consistency, and the rule of law.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). Reform Options for ISDS. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/UNCITRAL-recs-and-justification-final.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Reform Options for ISDS. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/UNCITRAL-recs-and-justification-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Reform Options for ISDS |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/UNCITRAL-recs-and-justification-final.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndreform, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Reform Options for ISDS}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/UNCITRAL-recs-and-justification-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }