Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which makes it possible for foreign investors to sue host states in arbitral tribunals, has been at the centre of recent mobilisations against claimed trade injustices. Critics tend to identify ISDS as epitomising neoliberalism or neo-imperialism in international law, or as a hybrid of these two. My intention in this essay is not to undermine such critiques but rather to examine the work that the concept of sovereignty does within them and to consider the possible tragic quality of proposals that point towards political action focused on reclaiming sovereignty. I argue that, when critiques of ISDS are couched in terms of sovereignty lost by states to corporations, critics find themselves implicitly working with ‘two types of sovereign power: a “bad”, dominative type…and a “good” emancipatory type’. When corporate sovereignty is depicted as a ‘bad’ dominative type, it is often implied that, if returned to states (or communities) sovereignty would function as the ‘good’, emancipatory type. And yet, as Joan Cocks observes, struggles for freedom through sovereignty can be dangerous, frequently recreating the injuries they seek to escape. But we can go further and ask not only about the salience of the concept of sovereignty for critiques of ISDS and international investment law, but also about the temporal mismatch between critiques that appear to respond to historical, anti-colonial concerns about sovereignty, and the coordinates of our own contemporary problem-space.

中文翻译：

---

当代投资者国家争端解决批评中的主权与悲剧

投资者与国家争端解决机制 (ISDS) 使外国投资者有可能在仲裁庭起诉东道国，这是最近针对声称的贸易不公的动员活动的核心。批评者倾向于将 ISDS 视为国际法中新自由主义或新帝国主义的缩影，或者是这两者的混合体。我在这篇文章中的意图不是要破坏这些批评，而是要检查主权概念在其中所做的工作，并考虑指向以收回主权为重点的政治行动的提案可能具有的悲剧性质。我认为，当对 ISDS 的批评以国家失去给公司的主权为依据时，批评者发现自己暗中在处理“两种类型的主权权力：“坏的”支配型……和“好”的解放型。当公司主权被描述为“坏的”支配类型时，通常暗示，如果回到国家（或社区），主权将作为“好”的、解放的类型发挥作用。然而，正如琼·科克斯 (Joan Cocks) 所观察到的，通过主权争取自由的斗争可能是危险的，经常会重现他们试图逃避的伤害。但我们可以更进一步，不仅询问主权概念在 ISDS 和国际投资法批评中的重要性，而且还询问似乎回应对主权的历史、反殖民主义关切的批评之间的时间不匹配，以及我们自己当代问题空间的坐标。解放型。然而，正如琼·科克斯 (Joan Cocks) 所观察到的，通过主权争取自由的斗争可能是危险的，经常会重现他们试图逃避的伤害。但我们可以更进一步，不仅询问主权概念在 ISDS 和国际投资法批评中的重要性，而且还询问似乎回应对主权的历史、反殖民主义关切的批评之间的时间不匹配，以及我们自己当代问题空间的坐标。解放型。然而，正如琼·科克斯 (Joan Cocks) 所观察到的，通过主权争取自由的斗争可能是危险的，经常会重现他们试图逃避的伤害。但我们可以更进一步，不仅询问主权概念在 ISDS 和国际投资法批评中的重要性，而且还询问似乎回应对主权的历史、反殖民主义关切的批评之间的时间不匹配，以及我们自己当代问题空间的坐标。