When the ICSID system was being set up, the matter of compliance with investment awards rendered against States was considered "academic". ICSID’s architects believed that as long as States would remain under an international obligation to comply with awards they would generally do so. Writing in the 2000s and early 2010s, commentators observed that States have generally complied with adverse investment awards. In the last two decades, the number of investor-State arbitrations has soared, and more and more damages awards have been rendered against States. This analysis seeks to contribute to a fact-based debate on the future of international investment law by addressing an under-examined but essential aspect of that regime, namely, compliance with investment awards. It assesses empirically the experience with investment arbitration of the thirty-two most sued States, covering approximately 70% of all cases initiated through to the end of 2019. The data examined indicates that the ICSID founders’ prognosis that compliance with investment awards would be a non-issue—framed as it was in such sweeping terms—has not held true. Whereas the majority of States have complied with adverse awards (usually after seeking annulment), the instances of non-compliance or significantly delayed compliance are important. A significant proportion of the cases where States have been ordered to pay damages have required enforcement proceedings. Instances of home State’s intervention--and inevitably re-politicization of the dispute--have resurged. There is thus a gap between the regime’s authority and effectiveness that needs to be addressed. Still, and regardless of its imperfections, it could be said that the modern investment dispute resolution system continues to be revolutionary, in particular when compared to the antecedent regime, which rested almost entirely on the inclination of the home State to espouse its nationals’ claims.

中文翻译：

---

国家遵守投资奖励

 

在建立 ICSID 系统时，遵守针对国家的投资裁决的问题被认为是“学术性的”。ICSID 的设计者认为，只要各国继续承担遵守裁决的国际义务，他们通常就会这样做。评论员在 2000 年代和 2010 年代初撰文指出，各国普遍遵守不利的投资裁决。在过去的 20 年中，投资者与国家之间的仲裁数量猛增，越来越多的损害赔偿裁决针对国家。该分析旨在通过解决该制度中一个未被充分审查但至关重要的方面，即遵守投资裁决，促进关于国际投资法未来的基于事实的辩论。它根据经验评估了 32 个被起诉最多的国家的投资仲裁经验，涵盖了截至 2019 年底所有案件的大约 70%。所审查的数据表明，ICSID 创始人的预测是遵守投资裁决将是一个非问题——以如此笼统的术语来表述——并不成立。尽管大多数国家都遵守了不利裁决（通常是在寻求撤销之后），但不遵守或严重延迟遵守的情况很重要。在命令国家支付损害赔偿金的案件中，很大一部分需要执行程序。母国干预的事例——以及不可避免地将争端重新政治化——已经卷土重来。因此，需要解决该制度的权威性和有效性之间的差距。尽管如此，尽管存在缺陷，但可以说现代投资争议解决制度仍然具有革命性，特别是与前身制度相比时，后者几乎完全依赖母国支持其国民索赔的倾向.