Multilateral Investment Court:

Is It a New Breath for the Settlement of International Investment Disputes or a Stillborn Project?

Talat Kaya

 

ABSTRACT: The current international investment agreements (IIAs) regime, in particular the treaty-based investor-state arbitration mechanism, has been widely criticized across the world. Concerns have centered on issues such as legitimacy, transparency, consistency, predictability,

conflict of interest, cost and duration. In response to these concerns, the EU has proposed the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) system to replace the investment arbitration systems in IIAs. Towards this end, the EU has engaged into multilateral discussions with other countries under the UNCITRAL Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform), which has a broad mandate to work on the possible reform of ISDS. However, it is debatable to what extent the MIC system can respond to the problems arising from IIAs regime and investment arbitration in particular. It is also dubious whether the EU would find enough support from the key stakeholder countries, such as the US, China, Japan, Russia, India and others that are skeptical about the establishment MIC system.