The New Face of Investment Arbitration
1 Revista del Circulo Peruano de Arbitraje 41 (2006)
reprinted 19 Int’l Arb. Rep. 39 (Jan. 2004)
28 Yale J. Int’l L. 365 (2003), with Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez
International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions 392 (ICCA Congress Series No. 11, A.J. van den Berg ed. 2003)
Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-36
67 Pages Posted: 19 Aug 2017
Date Written: January 1, 2003
Abstract
To protect American investment abroad, the United States traditionally endorsed arbitration as a preferred means to resolve disputes between investors and host countries. Yet a growing awareness of the down-side of arbitration, at least from the perspective of the party seeking the home-town justice of its own courts, has led to media attacks and legislative initiatives intended to hobble neutral international adjudication. This article suggests that assaults on investment arbitration are misguided, and may end up doing more harm than good. On balance, NAFTA arbitration serves as a positive force in the protection of legitimate economic expectations, enhancing the type of asset protection that facilitates wealth-creating capital flows, bringing net gains for both host state and foreign investor. A retreat from investment arbitration will likely to backfire, creating problems than it solves.
Keywords: NAFTA, Chapter 11, Arbitration, sovereignty, International Arbitration, Investment Arbitration, Investment Protection, United States, Canada
JEL Classification: K33
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation