The Legal Nature of the Permanent ISDS Institutions Promoted by the EU: Are They Arbitral Institutions or International Courts?

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 77, 210 - 233, 21.01.2026

İnci Ataman Figanmeşe

https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2026.78.1807305

https://izlik.org/JA38JZ65AL

Öz

The EU has developed four separate treaties with Canada, Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico that envision the establishment of permanent dispute settlement institutions that will resolve investment disputes between investors and host States. The four treaties stipulate that decisions made by these permanent institutions, which will conduct two-tier proceedings with first instance and appeal bodies, shall be considered as arbitral awards. Whether these institutions, which have some features that resemble international courts, can be considered as arbitral institutions by non-party third states, so that their decisions can be enforced in those states as arbitral awards, is a debated issue. Although, unlike in typical arbitration, adjudicators will have pre-existing permanent judicial powers and investors will have no influence in their appointment, Article 1 (2) of the New York Convention appears to contain the necessary persuasive provision to convince courts of non-party third States to consider the decisions of, at least, the first-instance body that become final without being challenged as arbitral awards. Regarding the decisions made by the appeals body, convincing courts of non-party third states to consider them as arbitral awards appears to be more complicated. This will depend on whether these courts will interpret the provisions of their arbitration legislations, which, in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law, most likely provide that parties are free to determine the procedural rules to be followed by the arbitrators, as broadly as to allow the parties to agree that arbitrators other than those who rendered a preliminary award will review it.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CETA , EU-Mexico modernised EPA , New York Convention of 1958 Article 1(2) , lex arbitri , seat of arbitration , seat of proceedings , waiver of annulment actions , appeal mechanism , UNCITRAL Model Law Article 19

Kaynakça

• Bedjaoui M, ‘Challenge of Arbitrators’ , in: International Arbitration in a Changing World’ (ed. Albert Jan den Berg) Kluwe Law 1994, s. 85,86. google scholar
• van den Berg A J, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (Kluwer 1982). google scholar
• van den Berg A J, ‘Appeal Mechanism for ISDS Awards: Interaction with the New York and ICSID Conventions (2019) 34 (1) ICSID Review 156-189. google scholar
• Bjorklund AK, ‘Arbitration, the World Trade Organisation, and the Creation of a Multilateral Investment Court’ (2021) 37 Arbitration International 433-447. google scholar
• Bungenberg M and Holzer AM, ‘Potential Enforcement Mechanisms for Decisions of a Multilateral Investment Court’ in: Ünüvar, Jemielmiak and Dorhan (eds) Investment Courts: Challenges and Perspectives, Special Issue (2020) European Yearbook of International Law 75- 117. google scholar
• Bungenberg M and Holzer AM, ‘Commentary to Article 8.41’, in Marc Bungenberg and August Reinisch (eds) CETA Investment Law Article-by-Article Commentary (C.H. Beck 2022) 876-916. google scholar
• Calamita NJ, ‘The Incompatibility of Appelate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime’ (2017) 18 Journal of World Investment and Trade 585-627. google scholar
• Chaisse J, ‘The Appeal in International Investment Arbitration’ in Fach K and Titi C (eds) The Award in International Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2024) 443-467. google scholar
• Çalışkan Y and Dülger A, ‘Time for the Appeal Tribunal in Investment Arbitration’ in Nas Ç and Erkan M (eds) International Investment and Trade Agreements: Recent Developments and Problems 107-126. google scholar
• Diaz and Khanna, ‘Commentary to Art. 8.23’ in Keller M (ed) Chapter Eight of CETA, the Vietnam and Singapore Free Trade Agreements and EU Regulations: Article-by-Article Commentary (C.H. Beck 2023)., [Ekşi N, ‘İslam İşbirliği Teşkilatı Tahkim Merkezi’ (2020) 9 (2) Uluslararası Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi 267-312.], [Fouchard P, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration Gaillard E and Savage J (eds) (Kluwer Law International 1999).], [Giorgetti C, ‘The Transformation of International Organisations -Specialization, New Initiatives, and Working Methods- Some Observations on the Work of UCITRAL Working Group III’ (2023) 26 Journal of International Economic Law, 40-50.], [Hamida W, ‘The First Arab Investment Court Decision’ (2006) 7 (5) The Journal of Word Investment and Trade 699-721.], google scholar
• Hindelang S and Hagemeyer T, In Pursuit of an International Investment Court, Study for the European Parliament, Policy Department,Directorate-General for External Policies (2017) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3007590 accessed 19 September 2025. google scholar
• Hoffmeister F and Kempynck M, Commentary to Art 8.28 in: Bungenberg and Reinisch (eds) CETA Investment Law (Beck-Nomos Hart 2022). google scholar
• Holtzmann HM and Neuhaus JE, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on the International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer 1989). google scholar
• Hermann G, ‘Power of Arbitrators to Determine Procedure under the UNCIITRAL Model Law’ in van den Berg AJ (ed) ‘Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, The Law Applicable in International Arbitration’ International Council for Commercial Arbitration Congress Series no. 7 (Kluwer 1996) 37. google scholar
• Kalafatoğlu MP, ‘Waiver of Setting Aside Action under the Turkish International Arbitration Code (Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu UYarınca İptal Davası Açma Hakkından Feragat) ’ (2018) 38 (2) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 339-368. google scholar
• Káposznyák A, ‘The Expanding Role of the New York Convention in Enforcement of International Investment Arbitral Awards’ in Katia Fach Gómez and Ana Mercedes López Rodríguez, 60 Years of the New York Convention (Wolters Kluwer 2019) 425-440. google scholar
• Lazo RP, ‘Beyond ICSID Arbitration: The Centre for Settlement of Disputes of UNASUR’ (2016) Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2014-2015, p. 375-404., [Leonard P, ‘Patrick Costello v. the Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General: Obstacles to the Ratification of CETA in the Irish Constitutional Context’ (2023) 38 (2) ICSID Review, 286-293], [Lenk H, ‘Something Borrowed, Something New: The TTIP Investment Court: How to Fit Old Procedure into New Institutional Design’ in: Fahley E.(ed) Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State (Springer 2018) 129-147.], [Özbay I and Erdem M,] ‘Thoughts on Islamic Cooperation Arbitration Centre as an Example of Organisation Institutional Arbitration Centre (Bir Kurumsal Tahkim Merkezi Örneği Olarak İslam İşbirliği Teşkilatı Tahkim Merkezi Üzerine Düşünceler)’ (2020) 2 (1) Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1-58 google scholar
• Poudret JF and Besson S, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (Stephen V. Beri and Annette Ponti tr) 2nd edn, Thomson Sweet&Maxwell 2007) google scholar
• Reinisch A, ‘Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards? – The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration’ (2016) 19 Intenational Economic Law 761-786. google scholar
• Riffel C, ‘The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications-Not that Selfish After All’ (2019) 22 Journal of Economic Law, 503-521. google scholar
• Schill SW, “Authority, Legitimacy and Fragmentation in the (Envisaged) Dispute Settlement Disciplines in Mega-Regionals’ in: Griller D, Obwexer W, Vranes E (eds.) Mega Regional Trade Agreements: CETA, TTIP, and TISA (Oxford University Press 2017) 111-150 google scholar
• Schreuer HC, Schill SW, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (eds) Schreuer’s Commentary on the ICSID Convention (3rd edn Kluwer 2022) https://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/KLI-KA-Schill-2022-Art37. google scholar
• Serbest F, ‘Investment Arbitration of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference as a Multilateral Investment Protection Agreement: A Little Known but Promising Instrument’ in Nas Ç and Erkan M (eds) International Investment and Trade Agreements: Recent Developments and Problems (Onikilevha 2018) 57-80. google scholar
• Torterola I, and Sharipov F, ‘The 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules: Modernising International Investment Dispute Resolution’ (2004) 39 (1) ICSID Review 52- 60. google scholar
• Wagner G, and Samanci O, ‘Arbitration Meets Human Rights–the Pechstein Saga and its Implications for Commercial Disputes’ 2025 (41) 2 Arbitration International, 257-285. google scholar