{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01993704092339979, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.317880794701987, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investor-State Arbitration in Sovereign Debt Restructuring: The Role of Holdouts

Abaclat and others v. Argentina is the first investor-state arbitration case that deals with holdouts. International arbitration, compared to litigation, gives holdouts a more efficient way to enforce a final and binding decision as well as to attach and execute against sovereign assets. However, the jurisdiction of investor-state arbitration tribunals over holdout claims is a complex matter, since the claims have to be treaty claims, and they have to be legal disputes related to an investment. The fact that investor-state arbitration tribunals assess jurisdiction over these kinds of disputes may have a positive impact on the restructuring process and the sovereign debt markets. Nevertheless, holdout arbitration may also disrupt the restructuring process. In order to avoid such a problem, arbitration tribunals should limit the scope of the arbitration remedy.