Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been a prominent
feature of bilateral investment treaties that have proliferated since the
mid-20th century. Perhaps in part due to its popularity, ISDS has recently been
subject to significant criticism. The European Union has proposed a
reconception of ISDS in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with
Canada (CETA), which was signed on 30 October 2016, in its proposed Investment
Chapter for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which it
was negotiating with the United States until those negotiations were
effectively paused in early 2017, as well as in several other policy documents
and free trade agreements. The EU’S proposed “Investment Court System” (ICS) in
particular, would make resolution of investment disputes more similar to the World
Trade Organisation’s (WTO) state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism for
trade disputes and, as the EU sees it, would form the basis for a broader
restructuring and multilateralisation of investment protection worldwide. This
article examines the EU’S proposed approach and aims to compare key aspects of
its Investment Court mechanism to the WTO. Where possible, we also consider
some of the lessons learned from the WTO and how they compare to the EU’S
proposed Investment Court System.