Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): Mechanisms and Controversies

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a mechanism designed to resolve disputes between foreign investors and host states. This article explores the mechanisms and controversies surrounding ISDS, shedding light on its history, processes, and the criticisms it has faced.


Explanation of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a mechanism included in international investment agreements that allows investors to bring claims against states for alleged violations of their rights. These rights are typically outlined in the agreement and can include protections such as fair and equitable treatment, protection against expropriation without compensation, and the guarantee of full protection and security. ISDS is designed to provide a neutral forum for resolving disputes between investors and states, separate from domestic courts, and is meant to ensure that investors are treated fairly and receive compensation for any harm suffered.

Overview of the mechanisms involved in ISDS cases: The mechanisms involved in ISDS cases typically include arbitration panels composed of independent arbitrators who are tasked with reviewing the claims brought by investors and the responses from the state. These panels operate under established rules and procedures, often based on international arbitration conventions or specific investment agreements. The arbitrators are expected to render a decision based on the evidence presented and the legal arguments made by both parties, with the goal of providing a fair and impartial resolution to the dispute.

Brief history of ISDS and its purpose: The history of ISDS can be traced back to the mid-20th century when countries began signing bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other international agreements to promote and protect foreign investment. The purpose of ISDS was to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes that might arise between investors and host states, particularly in developing countries where legal systems were perceived as less reliable. Over time, the number of investment agreements including ISDS provisions has grown significantly, leading to a rise in the number of ISDS cases filed by investors against states around the world.

Mechanisms of ISDS

Arbitration process in resolving disputes between investors and states: Mechanisms of ISDS refer to the processes and procedures involved in resolving disputes between investors and states through arbitration. This mechanism allows for a neutral third party to hear the arguments from both sides and make a binding decision to settle the dispute. It provides a structured and formalised way to address conflicts that may arise between investors and states, ensuring fairness and impartiality in the resolution process.

Role of international arbitration tribunals in ISDS cases: The role of international arbitration tribunals in ISDS cases is crucial in ensuring a fair and unbiased resolution of disputes. These tribunals are typically composed of legal experts and arbitrators with expertise in international law. They are responsible for reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, applying relevant legal principles, and issuing a final decision on the dispute. The tribunals play a key role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that disputes are resolved in accordance with international treaties and agreements.

Enforcement of ISDS awards and decisions: Enforcement of ISDS awards and decisions is an important aspect of the mechanism. Once a tribunal has issued a decision in an ISDS case, it is essential that the award is enforced to ensure compliance and accountability. This may involve the winning party seeking enforcement through domestic courts or other legal means. The enforcement of ISDS awards helps to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process and ensures that parties abide by the decisions made by the tribunal.

Controversies Surrounding ISDS

Criticism of lack of transparency in ISDS proceedings: Critics of ISDS often point to the lack of transparency in the proceedings as a major concern. The arbitration process is typically conducted behind closed doors, with limited public access to the hearings and documents. This lack of transparency can lead to suspicions of bias or favouritism, as well as questions about the fairness of the decisions reached. Critics argue that greater transparency is needed to ensure accountability and legitimacy in ISDS cases.

Concerns about potential conflicts of interest in arbitrators: Another controversy surrounding ISDS is the potential for conflicts of interest among arbitrators. The system relies on a small group of legal experts to serve as arbitrators in disputes between investors and states. Critics argue that these arbitrators may have financial or professional ties to the parties involved, raising questions about their impartiality and independence. Concerns have been raised about the lack of clear rules and procedures for addressing conflicts of interest, leading to calls for greater scrutiny and regulation of arbitrators in ISDS cases.

Debate over the impact of ISDS on national sovereignty: There is also a debate over the impact of ISDS on national sovereignty. Critics argue that the system undermines the ability of states to regulate in the public interest, as decisions made by arbitrators can override domestic laws and policies. They raise concerns about the potential for ISDS to limit governments’ ability to protect public health, the environment, and other social objectives. Proponents of ISDS, on the other hand, argue that it is necessary to provide investors with a neutral and effective mechanism for resolving disputes with host states, thereby promoting investment and economic development.


In conclusion, Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a complex mechanism designed to resolve disputes between investors and states. While it provides a forum for resolving conflicts, ISDS has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and potential impact on national sovereignty. Moving forward, addressing these controversies will be crucial in ensuring a fair and balanced system for all parties involved.

*Disclaimer: This website copy is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, book an initial consultation with our commercial solicitors HERE.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *