1. Jean says

    I believe that this sentence may be misleading :
    “The fact is that four out of six arbitrators found that the expropriation was perfectly lawful. And yet Venezuela can expect a mega award.”

    Perhaps we could say “And yet Venezuele can expect to PAY a mega award” ?


  2. Grégoire says

    One thing remains unclear to me: since the third arbitrator is chosen commonly by the two first judges, how come don’t they agree on better, less partial ones?

    Many thanks for this article and the many others, which provide valuable resource in understanding how the world works nowadays, especially the TPP and TIPP.

    • Thanks for your compliments. About the third arbitrator: obviously, both arbitrators have to agree. This means that it is probable that the third one comes from the same circle as these two. Which is the circle of experienced lawyers and arbitrators with the same background, and connected to the same institutions, for whom ISDS is a fact of life and not something to criticize. Sometimes the two arbitrators can choose from a list of eleven names, provided by the host institution, from which they can delete 5. This means that the five most outspoken (to both extremes) will often be filtered out.
      This is also something that we see in our figures: the list of government favourites don’t end up high on the chairman list. There is more overlap with the investors’ favourites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *