« Two of these places are not like the others | Main | The Ku Klux Klan really is different »

April 21, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Even if the European proposal doesn't fly in full perhaps Washington might be okay with:

- a permanent pool of arbiters (as opposed to judges) who would be assigned cases at random and be unable to serve as lawyers in other investment disputes

- full transparency in proceedings, including video (unless both parties to the dispute agreed otherwise)

- allowing states to provide binding guidance on treaty interpretation before cases are brought

- continuing to allow arbitral tribunals to award the attorney fees to one side or another and not necessarily the winner

I can't see them signing on to an appeals mechanism as you said, but if the four bits above were to form the basis of acceptable reform it would probably be better than the current system and at some point down the road (perhaps 50 years hence) form the basis of a true Investment Court System....

Heh, I found this post fascinating because I've been reading about Colombian frustration with frivolous suits...

The comments to this entry are closed.