{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014671814671814672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.75, '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}}
Reconciling States Quest to Uphold Their Sovereignty through the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and the Need for Effective Settlement of Investor State Disputes under the ICSID Convention.

The motivation behind this paper is to analyze how states pursuit to maintain their sovereignty through the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the need to have an effective mode of settlement of the investor-state dispute has been balanced under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (hereinafter ICSID Convention). In doing so, the author shall do an analysis on the brief history behind the creation of the ICSID Convention, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(hereinafter ICSID) jurisdiction over investor-state disputes; analyze what constitutes the doctrine of sovereign immunity; enunciate what constitutes investor-state disputes settlement; and, analyze the seminal provisions of ICSID Convention that seek to uphold states sovereignty through the doctrine of sovereign immunity and also ensure effective settlement of investor-state disputes resolution under the ICSID Convention. Lastly, the paper shall give a conclusion on whether the Convention has succeeded in maintaining this delicate yet vital balance.