Winning or losing in investor-to-state dispute resolution: the role of arbitrator bias and experience

Julian Donaubauer, Eric Neumayer and Peter Nunnenkamp

LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library

Abstract: When an investor sues a state for alleged breaches of its obligations under an investment treaty or a trade agreement with investment provisions, all that should matter for who wins the case are the merits of the claim itself. Alas, investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) does not take place in a vacuum. Such cases are decided by a tribunal typically consisting of three arbitrators, one each nominated by the two parties while the president is mutually agreed upon. We demonstrate that the kind of involvement of these arbitrators in previous ISDS cases matters for the case under dispute. Specifically, we show that what we label the presidents' pro-investor appointment bias—the number of times they have previously been nominated by an investor minus the number of times they have represented respondent states—raises the likelihood that an investor wins an ISDS case. The same holds for the pro-investor appointment bias of state-appointed arbitrators. Given the president's crucial role, the main implication of our findings is that presidents should be drawn from among those who have not systematically represented more one side than the other in previous cases.

JEL-codes: J1 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018-09-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Published in Review of International Economics, 1, September, 2018, 26(4), pp. 892-916. ISSN: 0965-7576

Downloads: (external link)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87256/ Open access version. (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Winning or losing in investor‐to‐state dispute resolution: The role of arbitrator bias and experience (2018)
Working Paper: Winning or losing in investor-to-state dispute resolution: The role of arbitrator bias and experience (2017)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ehl:lserod:87256

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library LSE Library Portugal Street London, WC2A 2HD, U.K.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by LSERO Manager ().