Show/Hide Menu
Hide/Show Apps
Logout
Türkçe
Türkçe
Search
Search
Login
Login
OpenMETU
OpenMETU
About
About
Open Science Policy
Open Science Policy
Open Access Guideline
Open Access Guideline
Postgraduate Thesis Guideline
Postgraduate Thesis Guideline
Communities & Collections
Communities & Collections
Help
Help
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Guides
Guides
Thesis submission
Thesis submission
MS without thesis term project submission
MS without thesis term project submission
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission
Publication submission
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
General Information
General Information
Copyright, Embargo and License
Copyright, Embargo and License
Contact us
Contact us
From Divergent Paths to the Same Trap: The Legitimacy Crisis of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System
Download
10689718.pdf
Date
2024-12-30
Author
Sönmez, Esma Yağmur
Metadata
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
.
Item Usage Stats
39
views
52
downloads
Cite This
This thesis critically examines a much-debated issue in international law: the legitimacy of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS). The system was initially conceived to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for the protection and promotion of foreign investment. In time, this objective has incited a discussion on the legitimacy of the system as the developed world has started to experience the role of host states. Since then, they have taken the lead in the reform process to achieve a balance between host state's and foreign investors' rights. To this effect, both the European Union (EU) and the Third Way Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are for centralization of the system arguing its current problems emanate from its ad hoc and decentralized nature. Although both are aimed at system centralization, the paths they take to achieve it clearly differ. The EU seeks a permanent investment court by which ad hoc arbitration would give way to a more centralized framework. However, TWAIL advocates for a return to the pre-ISDS era, where national courts resolve investment disputes between foreign investors and states. The effectiveness of these two reform ideas in addressing the purported legitimacy concerns of the ISDS is critically examined in this thesis using Martti Koskenniemi's legal approach. Ultimately, it asserts that neither proposal is adequate to resolve the legitimacy issue of the system, as legitimacy can only be achieved by strengthening the principle of justice, which is feasible alone through a more decentralized structure.
Subject Keywords
International Investment Law, The Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, Critical Legal Approaches, The European Union, Third Way Approaches to International Law
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/112934
Collections
Graduate School of Social Sciences, Thesis
Citation Formats
IEEE
ACM
APA
CHICAGO
MLA
BibTeX
E. Y. Sönmez, “From Divergent Paths to the Same Trap: The Legitimacy Crisis of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System,” Ph.D. - Doctoral Program, Middle East Technical University, 2024.