INVESTMENT-RELATED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: REFLECTIONS ON A NEW BEGINNING

The document details a 2014 expert meeting hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to rethink international investment dispute settlement. Experts argued that the current status quo is unsatisfactory and proposed moving away from a focus solely on investor rights and state obligations. They emphasized the need for inclusive mechanisms that allow individuals, local communities, and other affected stakeholders to seek remedies for issues such as human rights abuses and environmental damage. The report outlines four proposed models: a 'toolbox' of ad hoc mechanisms, a dedicated International Investment Mediation Service (IIMS), a multilayered procedure involving mandatory fact-finding and a choice between judicial or arbitral paths, and a comprehensive treaty-based institution with judicial, investigative, and mediation functions.

• Experts agreed that current international investment dispute settlement is inadequate and must expand to include stakeholders beyond states and investors, specifically including "individuals and communities affected by investment activities".
• There is a consensus on the need to shift the paradigm of investment disputes from focusing exclusively on investor rights and state obligations to recognizing a wider variety of relationships, including the responsibility of foreign investors to respect human rights.
• The experts identified a preference for judicial mechanisms over arbitration due to perceived gains in independence and predictability, and suggested that an appeals mechanism could improve accountability.
• The 'Toolbox' model proposes a one-stop shop of ad hoc mechanisms—including negotiation, mediation, and litigation—managed by an "institutional anchor" and accessible to a wide range of stakeholders.
• The International Investment Mediation Service (IIMS) model focuses on a standing body of mediators and conciliators, emphasizing confidentiality and voluntary remedies, with potential funding from state contributions or voluntary funds.
• The Multilayered Dispute Settlement Procedure model suggests a treaty-based system starting with a "compulsory fact-finding inquiry process" by an inspection panel, followed by voluntary mediation, and ending in either an international court (the default) or arbitral proceedings.
• The fourth model proposes a treaty-based international institution with judicial, investigative, and mediation functions that would not require the consent of the defendant (such as a company) to exercise jurisdiction over conduct within a contracting state's territory.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (2015). INVESTMENT-RELATED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: REFLECTIONS ON A NEW BEGINNING. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-related-dispute-settlement-expert-meeting-report.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. INVESTMENT-RELATED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: REFLECTIONS ON A NEW BEGINNING. 2015. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-related-dispute-settlement-expert-meeting-report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=INVESTMENT-RELATED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: REFLECTIONS ON A NEW BEGINNING |date=February 2015 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-related-dispute-settlement-expert-meeting-report.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopment2015investmentrelated, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{INVESTMENT-RELATED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: REFLECTIONS ON A NEW BEGINNING}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2015}, month = feb, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-related-dispute-settlement-expert-meeting-report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }