This article analyzes the validity of some of the most often-heard criticism against ISDS. It concludes that most of that criticism is neither supported by statistical evidence nor by the practice of international arbitration law. Consequently, this article cautions against the current hyper-activism to reform or even to dismantle some of the salient features of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and instead, calls for a rational and balanced debate based on facts with a view to improving the ISDS system where necessary in an orderly fashion.
Journal of International Arbitration