The protection of aliens under international law has progressed from the alien being a ‘clanless’ individual or outlaw completely at the mercy of the local lord, with no entitlement to the peace and protection of the locality in the earliest times to the modern, sophisticated investor–State dispute settlement mechanisms. It was only after the end of the Cold War, when foreign investments grew dramatically and hundreds of major investor–State disputes emerged, that interest in investor–State disputes sharpened. This essay demonstrates that several fundamental changes in the legal landscape have occurred since the constitution of the early compensation commissions of the eighteenth century leading to the modern system of resolution of investor-State disputes. First, a growing number of multinational enterprises operating globally have become major actors on the international public law plain, in areas that in the past were reserved only for States. Second, international organizations and other non-State actors have dramatically strengthened their influence with efficient international arbitration institutions dominating the system of investor-State dispute resolution after the end of the Cold War. The methods for resolving investor-State disputes have evolved primarily along the lines of creating specialised institutionalised forms. While early commissioners relied on their subjective understanding of justice and fairness, today the expectation is applying agreed set of rules (‘‘precept imposed from outside’’ using Hersch Lauterpacht’s language), so that failure to do so may result in annulment of the award. The evolution of various methods of international dispute settlement and the emergence of new methods, such as international investment courts, does not necessarily mean that the older forms of dispute resolution will die like the dinosaurs. They will continue to function, albeit with modifications and will inform the future models of international dispute settlement. Two recently published books represent the most sophisticated attempts to address the complex questions of the evolution of investor–State arbitration from a historical perspective. In The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy, Alec Sweet and Florian Grisel (hereinafter Sweet & Grisel) argue that a consolidation of arbitration power has occurred over the past century, and although the structure of authority in international arbitration remains nonhierarchical and pluralist, the regime has gradually acquired the properties of stable legal system. International Investment Law and History is a volume edited by University of Glasgow professor Christian Tams, University of Amsterdam professor Stephan Schill and University of Frankfurt professor Rainer Hofmann that includes contributions from academics discussing a broad variety of issues. Part II of this essay examines the evolution of investor–State dispute settlement mechanisms from compensation commissions dominated by sovereigns to current legal institutions. Part III traces the evolution of approaches to those who resolve the disputes and appointment mechanisms, which changed from political appointees to legal experts. Part IV shows that when it comes to the applicable law, it has evolved from almost unlimited discretion of adjudicators based on fairness and equity to formal external sources of law. Each part of this review essay starts with an overview of the relevant sections of both volumes and ends with my analysis of a large number of historical documents to give a more comprehensive understanding of the historical evolution of international investment law.

中文翻译：

---

投资者与国家之间争端的途径：从赔偿委员会到仲裁机构

根据国际法对外国人的保护已从完全成为当地人的“无支配”个人或不法分子发展而来，而现代，老练的投资者却无权最早获得和平与保护地方–国家争端解决机制。只是在冷战结束之后，当外国投资急剧增长并且出现了数百个主要的投资者与国家之间的争端时，人们才对投资者与国家之间的争端产生了兴趣。本文表明，自从18世纪早期的赔偿委员会成立以来，法律格局发生了几项根本变化，从而导致了现代的投资者与国家间纠纷解决系统。第一，在过去只为国家保留的领域中，越来越多的跨国公司在全球开展业务，已成为国际公法平原上的主要行为者。第二，国际组织和其他非国家行为者通过冷战结束后有效的国际仲裁机构主导了投资者与国家争端解决系统的方式，大大增强了其影响力。解决投资者与国家之间争端的方法主要是沿着建立专门制度化形式的路线发展起来的。早期的专员依靠他们对正义与公平的主观理解，而今天的期望是采用一套公认的规则（使用赫施·劳特帕赫特的语言“从外部施加的戒律”），因此不这样做可能会导致该裁决被废止。 。国际解决争端的各种方法的发展以及国际投资法院等新方法的出现，并不一定意味着较旧形式的争端解决方式将像恐龙一样消亡。它们将继续发挥作用，尽管会进行修改，并将为将来的国际争端解决模式提供依据。最近出版的两本书代表了从历史的角度解决投资者-国家仲裁演变复杂问题的最复杂的尝试。在《国际仲裁的演变：司法化，治理，合法性，亚历克·斯威特和弗洛里安·格里瑟（Frerian Grisel，以下简称斯威特·格里瑟）的论点中，过去一个世纪以来，仲裁权已经得到巩固，尽管国际仲裁中的权威结构仍然是非等级的和多元化的，但该制度已逐渐获得稳定法律制度的特性。《国际投资法和历史》是由格拉斯哥大学的克里斯蒂安·塔姆斯教授，阿姆斯特丹大学的斯蒂芬·史基尔教授和法兰克福大学的兰纳·霍夫曼教授编辑的一卷，其中包括学者们对各种问题的讨论。本文的第二部分探讨了投资者与国家之间的争端解决机制从主权国家主导的赔偿委员会到现行法律制度的演变。第三部分追溯了解决争端和任命机制的方法的演变，这些过程从政治任命到法律专家。第四部分表明，在适用法律方面，它已从基于公正性和公平性的法官的几乎无限的酌处权演变为正式的外部法律渊源。这篇综述文章的每一部分都从两卷相关章节的概述开始，以我对大量历史文献的分析结束，以更全面地理解国际投资法的历史演变。