| | Columbia FDI Perspectives |
|
The case for an advisory center on international investment lawby Umirdinov Alisher * Since it is costly for developing and especially least developed country (LDC) members to participate in the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute-settlement mechanism, the Advisory Center on WTO Law (ACWL) was launched in 2001; it provides subsidized, low-cost legal advice to developing and LDC members of the WTO. As an institution engaged in legal aid on a global scale, it currently has nine staff members. All are lawyers, providing over 200 legal opinions each year in response to requests from eligible members on potential trade disputes. The ACWL has been recognized for its role in helping represent poor countries in WTO disputes, and has a high level of satisfaction among its users. [1] Is there a need for a similar advisory center in the field of international investment arbitration? While no one denies the need for reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), few have offered specific recommendations. [2] Filed cases totaled at least 667 as of September 2015. [3] New market entrants, such as third-party funders, are making the situation even more difficult for respondent countries. Unfortunately, many developing countries still lack human resources, face language barriers and often struggle with budget constraints. Therefore, compared to the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism, it could be argued that the developing world has a stronger need for an ACWL-like institution in the field of investment arbitration in order to lessen their financial burden. Given this need, why do we still not have such an institution? - First, the WTO is a multilateral system built on one set of rules, working with one centralized state-to-state dispute-settlement mechanism. The international investment regime, however, is fragmented, consisting of more than 3,000 international investment agreements with several institutional and ad hoc forums.
- Second, the geographical dispersion of ISDS venues presents a problem. The WTO Panel and Appellate Body have a permanent seat in Geneva; this makes it easy for ACWL’s lawyers to handle trade disputes.
- Third, there is the scope of fact-finding and legal fees. WTO cases are not inherently prone to lengthy fact-finding. However, investment arbitration requires significant time and expense for fact-finding and may make it difficult for a small, permanent institution to follow long and costly case procedures. The average WTO case costs about US$600,000-700,000, while average investment-arbitration costs total more than US$4 million[4]—more than the annual ACWL budget.
- Finally, lack of political support, budgetary constraints and perhaps lobbying by law firms have discouraged previous initiatives on an advisory center for investment arbitration in Latin American and ASEAN regions.[5]
This simple comparison might suggest that it is too difficult to establish an investment advisory center. However, there is one feasible option: to transplant the ACWL model into investment arbitration, but with regional offices in the main investment dispute hubs. Capacity building for in-house lawyers and assisting host countries in the defense of ISDS cases would be the main tasks for an investment dispute advisory center. In this case, the center could be launched under the auspices of one of the ISDS forums, potentially drawing on minimum contributions by member countries. Obviously, the minimum contribution would need to be higher than ACWL’s. However, compared to the high legal fees of law firms, developing countries would still reap the benefits of inexpensive and efficient service. Developed countries could be asked to donate to the advisory center. Subsidizing the defense cost of host countries could be taken as biased against the interest of their investors in the short term; however, it would serve the policy goals of those countries in terms of viability of the investment-protection system for the longer term. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Secretariat would be well-placed to propose and launch such an institution. Since it arbitrates the majority of investment disputes, comprises 151 contracting member states from around the world and is backed by the World Bank, ICSID is uniquely positioned to play a meaningful role in establishing such an advisory center. Another potential candidate is the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which has the benefit of 20 years’ experience administering its Financial Assistance Fund. Ultimately, whether an advisory center on international investment law can be launched in the near future depends on the political will of governments. Nonetheless, it is worth thoughtful consideration.
* Umirdinov Alisher ([log in to unmask]) is assistant professor of Law at Nagoya University, Graduate School of Law, Japan. The author is grateful to Cristian Chiffelle, Anna Joubin-Bret and Rodrigo Monardes for their helpful peer reviews and to Dai Yokomizo and Yaraslau Kryvoi for their comments. The views expressed by the author of this Perspective do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Columbia University or its partners and supporters. Columbia FDI Perspectives (ISSN 2158-3579) is a peer-reviewed series. [1] Nora Plaisier and Paul Wijmenga, “Evaluation of trade-related technical assistance, three Geneva-based organizations: ACWL, AITC and QUNO”, IOB Working Document, Policy and Operations Evaluation Department, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, pp. 1-36. [2] Karl P. Sauvant and Federico Ortino, Improving the International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Options for the Future (Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013), pp. 119-122; Thanh T. Nguyen and Thi C. Vu, “Investor-state dispute settlement from the perspective of Vietnam: looking for a ‘post-honeymoon’ reform”, in Jean E. Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret, eds., Transnational Dispute Management Journal, vol. 1 (2014). [4] Matthew Hodgson, “Counting the costs of investment treaty arbitration”, Global Arbitration Review News (March 24, 2014). |
|
The material in this Perspective may be reprinted if accompanied by the following acknowledgment: “Umirdinov Alisher, ‘The case for an advisory center on international investment law,’ Columbia FDI Perspectives, No. 175, June 6, 2016. Reprinted with permission from the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (www.ccsi.columbia.edu).” A copy should kindly be sent to the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment at [log in to unmask]
|
|
For further information, including information regarding submission to the Perspectives, please contact: Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Daniel Allman, [log in to unmask]. Most recent Columbia FDI Perspectives - No. 174, Qianwen Zhang, “China’s “new normal” in international investment agreements,” May 23, 2016.
- No. 173, Gabriel Bottini, “Using investor-state dispute settlement to enforce investor obligations,” May 9, 2016.
- No. 172, Maria Borga, “Not all foreign direct investment is foreign: the extent of round-tripping,” April 25, 2016.
All previous FDI Perspectives are available at http://ccsi.columbia.edu/publications/columbia-fdi-perspectives/. Other relevant CCSI news and announcements- On August 1-5, 2016, CCSI will hold it's Executive Training on Investment Arbitration for Government Officials in New York City. Through an intensive week-long course, government officials involved in managing investment treaty disputes or negotiating investment treaties will increase their knowledge of crucial procedural and substantive aspects of investment law. Sessions will be taught by leading academics and practitioners and will be tailored to uniquely address issues relevant to governments. For more information about the program, including application materials, please visit our website. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. Firms or organizations wishing to provide scholarships for the 2016 program should contact us at [log in to unmask] for more information.
- On November 2-3, 2016, CCSI will host the eleventh annual Columbia International Investment Conference, entitled “Climate Change and Sustainable Investment in Natural Resources: From Consensus to Action.” Both the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, reached last December at COP21, make clear that climate-change mitigation must be pursued within the broader agenda of ending poverty, promoting economic development, ensuring social inclusion, and protecting the physical environment. Our Conference, taking place one week before COP22, will offer a high-level opportunity to explore the complex challenges of the Paris Agreement in light of sustainable development, the SDGs, and the real challenges facing developing countries within the global economy. The Conference’s sessions will address issues including: the rapidly changing (and declining) role of hydrocarbons in the global energy system; how low-carbon strategies can and should be adapted to the development needs of low-income countries; how to manage land use to mitigate climate and environmental impacts and to maximize benefits for development; and the development of new international legal frameworks and global governance to support national-level actions. Registration is free, but required; for more information, including registration, please check our website.
- CCSI’s Negotiation Support Portal is now available in Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. The Portal is designed to support host countries in their planning, preparation for, negotiation, monitoring, and implementation of complex investment projects. We are always updating and improving the Portal, and encourage readers to regularly engage with the wealth of resources, trainings, and support provider organizations which are constantly being updated and improved.
|
|
Karl P. Sauvant, Ph.D.
Resident Senior Fellow
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia Law School - Earth Institute
Ph: (212) 854-0689
Fax: (212) 854-7946 |
|
|
| |
|
