{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03657522859517872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.651933701657459, '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}}
Investment Court System Under EU Trade and Investment Agreements: Addressing Criticisms of ISDS and Creating New Challenges

The Investment Court System (‘ICS’) included in the European Union (‘EU’)’s recent investment and trade agreements provides for the creation of a permanent first instance tribunal (‘First Instance Tribunal’) and an appellate tribunal (‘Appeal Tribunal’) drawn from a pre-selected roster of tribunal members. The ICS imposes mandatory transparency of proceedings, as well as a strict code of conduct applicable to all tribunal members. The ICS is expected to address several long-standing criticisms levied against investor-State dispute settlement (‘ISDS’). At the same time, the ICS raises new challenges that must be resolved for its effective operation. These must be addressed first and foremost by the EU and those pioneering trading partners who have so far committed to the ICS; only once resolved will the ICS gain traction with ISDS stakeholders.
EU Investment Court System, CETA, EU–Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, EU–Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, EU–Mexico Global Agreement, enforcement of ICS awards, ICSID Convention, New York Convention, ISDS