Legitimation through Modification: Do States Seek More Regulatory Space in Their Investment Agreements?

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

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

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 languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Legitimacy of Investment Arbitration
Subtitle of host publicationEmpirical Perspectives
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages531-554
Number of pages24
ISBN (Electronic)9781108946636
ISBN (Print)9781108837583
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Cambridge University Press.

Keywords

  • Agreement
  • Arbitration
  • BITs
  • Empirical
  • ISDS
  • Investment
  • Legitimacy
  • Methodology
  • Reform
  • Regulatory
  • Renegotiation
  • Space
  • Terminatation
  • Treaty

Fingerprint

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