This lecture surveys the criticisms directed at international investment agreements (IIAs) and their reliance on investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), as well as the leading reform venues that have been addressing such criticisms: UNCTAD, ICSID, and UNCITRAL. It argues that despite these ambitious efforts, the international investment regime’s reliance on investor-State arbitration will not be wholly displaced by any of the alternatives under active discussion – from national courts to mediation to a Multilateral Investment Court. In the long run, current reform efforts are likely to produce an ever more complex regime, governed by more diverse substantive rules interpreted by more complex options for dispute resolution. The focus on reforming the ways investor-State disputes are resolved fails to respond to doubts about the need for IIAs, undermines aspirations to harmonize international investment law, and ignores dire needs for stimulating (and protecting) foreign capital flows to achieve the goals of the Sustainable Development Goals – from mitigating climate change to preventing the next pandemic.

中文翻译：

---

ISDS 改革：长远眼光

本讲座调查了针对国际投资协定 (IIA) 及其对投资者与国家争端解决 (ISDS) 的依赖的批评，以及一直在解决此类批评的主要改革场所：贸发会议、国际投资争端解决中心和贸易法委员会。它认为，尽管做出了这些雄心勃勃的努力，但国际投资制度对投资者-国家仲裁的依赖不会完全被任何正在积极讨论的替代方案所取代——从国家法院到调解再到多边投资法院。从长远来看，当前的改革努力可能会产生一个更加复杂的制度，由更多样化的实质性规则管理，这些规则由更复杂的争议解决方案解释。改革投资国与国家争端解决方式的重点未能回应对国际投资协定必要性的质疑，