Date of Award
Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD)
This is how the dissertation is structured. It starts by examining the economic and legal effects of the proposed reforms: (1) establishing an international investment court and (2) limiting access to arbitration. The first study will focus on the effect of establishing an international investment court parallel with the current ISDS system by studying the establishment of the Arab Investment Court from 2003 to the present. The second test will examine the effect of the European Court's 2018 decision in Slovakia v. Achmea on the intra-EU flow of investment.
Chapter 2 examines the most debated ISDS reform proposal, which is the establishment of an international investment court, using the already existing multinational Arab Investment Court as a case study. Our study first benefits from introducing several investment court schemes and noting their similarities or differences from the Arab Investment Court. The question this chapter poses as to the court’s effect on foreign investment is an empirical one. Thus, the chapter adopts a quantitative method of measuring the intra-Arab flow of foreign direct investment within the Arab world before and after the establishment of the court, and comparing this data with a control group that had no access to the courtnt. The chapter then reports the results of this method and discusses their implications on law and policy.
In Chapter 3, the dissertation investigates the effects of the second major proposed reform, which is to limit investor access to investment arbitration. This study uses the E.C.J. decision banning almost all forms of intra-EU investment arbitration to shed light on the ramifications of such limiting of investor access to arbitration, including the upward trend of terminating international investment treaties. Chapter 3 employs a similar research method to that of Chapter 2, but adopts in a different economic bloc from the Arab world, namely the European Union. The chapter concludes by weighing the legal and economic effects of limiting investor access to arbitration. Finally, Chapter 4 analyzes the scarce use of amicable dispute resolution in investment disputes. While both Chapters 2 and 3 implement the economic analysis of law tools, Chapter 4 approaches its problem by introducing interdisciplinary perspectives. The chapter starts by identifying different methods of ADR such as mediation, negotiation, conciliation, and forms of dispute boards. It further distinguishes investment ADR from other contexts, such as domestic and state-to-state disputes. The study then analyzes how legal, political, cultural, and behavioral barriers may explain the current limited use of ADR in investment conflicts.
Chapter 4 provides an overview of efforts to increase the use of ADR in investment disputes, while nonetheless warning of potential pitfalls.
Chapter 5 concludes this dissertation with a brief summary, as well as both policy and practical recommendations, with suggestions for further methods and substance of research.
Chair and Committee
Professor Juan Del Valle (Chair), Professor Sunita Parikh, Professor James Reeves, Professor Karen Tokarz
Alotaibi, Saad Abdulaziz, "Rethinking Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reforms" (2023). School of Law Dissertations. 91.