Reforming the investment treaty regime


This report from UK think tank Chatham House looks at a practical and flexible option for reform of investor–state dispute settlement in investment treaties.

This paper, which is published under the Global Economy and Finance Programme’s ‘Rebuilding International Economic Cooperation’ project, proposes a practical and flexible option for reform of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) in investment treaties. ISDS, which allows foreign investors to sue sovereign governments through international arbitration, has become increasingly controversial. Although reform efforts have intensified in recent years, governments have focused primarily on constraining ISDS in future investment treaties. This is misguided. The most important reform effort lies not with future agreements but with the 3,000 already in place. A better solution would be to use plurilateral ‘interpretative statements’, allowing states to clarify and define their positions on contentious clauses in existing treaties. The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) could be tasked with prioritizing such an initiative as part of broader reform discussions. Alternatively, the new US administration could lead the process through the OECD, possibly with the UK.

Read Full Report

Explore our reports

  • Reset
Advanced search