EFILA has recently submitted its suggestions to the UNCITRAL Working Group no. 3 on ISDS Reform. The entire document can be found here. An extract can be read below.
The European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA) believes that no discussion about the reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system should occur without taking stock of the interests of all stakeholders. This is particularly true for the proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), which is currently being discussed and negotiated in UNCITRAL Working Group III. Without the active participation of all stakeholders (i.e. all potential users of the MIC) – including investors and their legal counsel – any ISDS system will lack legitimacy.
With this in mind, EFILA submits the following, non-exhaustive suggestions for ISDS reform and, in particular, for the MIC proposal:
The Appointment & Selection of MIC Judges: Central to the ISDS system’s ability to effectively resolve disputes between investors and States is the confidence of all stakeholders in their decision-makers. For this reason, EFILA believes that investors should continue to have a direct and indirect say in the choice of their decision-makers. The MIC should:
- Let a college of representatives chosen by the investors, as users of the system, participate in choosing candidates for the MIC;
- Give all stakeholders a right to strike out a given number of judges assigned to their panel; and
- Allow all stakeholders to retain the right to challenge MIC judges on the basis of clearly defined standards before an independent body.
Consistency of MIC Decisions: EFILA agrees that consistency in legal decisions is an important element of any well-functioning dispute resolution system. Consistency, however, must be objective. It cannot be used as a means to “correct” awards that arrive at unwelcome results. Any responses to consistency must respect the rule of law and the equality of the parties.
Accordingly, any final design of the MIC should:
- Not allow joint binding interpretations with potentially retroactive effect;
- Avoid unnecessarily reducing the material scope of the standards of investment and investor protection; and
- Limit exclusions of certain types of investors, investments and sectors to only to the
extent objectively and reasonably necessary.
Access To Justice For SMEs: Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are an integral part of the global economy. Any proposed reform of the ISDS system cannot disregard SMEs or discourage them from making full use of the ISDS system. The MIC, therefore, must include structural and systemic solutions that effectively ensure access to the system for SMEs. These include:
- Adopting cost-efficient rules that promote access to justice by SMEs;
- Establishing a process that informs and educates SMEs about the ISDS system and helps them to assess their claims; and
- Creating a financial support system for accessibility to the ISDS system for SMEs.
Enforcement of MIC Decisions: The application of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) to MIC decisions (even if just on an interim basis) raises serious potential obstacles to the enforceability of those decisions. Further thought should be given to ensuring that MIC decisions will be enforceable.
These suggestions, EFILA believes, will encourage confidence from all stakeholders in the MIC system and thus make the MIC a fair dispute settlement system for all users.