Legitimation through modification: Do states seek more regulatory space in their investment agreements?

Tomer Broude, Yoram Z. Haftel*, Alexander Thompson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review


The starting point is the observation that some states are and have been unhappy with certain BITs that include ISDS provisions. Based on a dataset on renegotiated and terminated BITs, the authors ask if this is the case. The initial evidence indicates that states have not made a systematic effort over the years to recalibrate their BITs for the purpose of preserving more regulatory space. In fact, most renegotiations either leave ISDS provisions unchanged or render them more investor-friendly. Nevertheless, the authors find that this is beginning to change, as recent renegotiations are more likely to circumscribe ISDS in ways that preserve more state regulatory space.
Original languageAmerican English
Title of host publicationThe legitimacy of investment arbitration
Subtitle of host publicationempirical perspectives
EditorsDaniel Behn, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Malcolm Langford
Place of PublicationNew York ; London
PublisherCambridge University Press
Number of pages24
ISBN (Electronic)9781108946636
ISBN (Print)9781108837583 , 9781108931212
StatePublished - 2022

Publication series

NameForthcoming in Daniel Behn and Ole Kristian Fauchald, Empirical Perspectives on the Legitimacy of Investment Treaty Arbitration (2017)., Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper


Dive into the research topics of 'Legitimation through modification: Do states seek more regulatory space in their investment agreements?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this