Abstract

ISDS is at a crossroads and many alternative solutions have been proposed for reforming the system. One has been neglected in the discussion: the role of joint commissions of the state parties resolving certain problems in investment treaties. This alternative 'withdraws' interpretative authority from tribunals and directs it to state agencies; tribunals gain interpretative authority only as a default rule. In order to answer the question of whether this alternative is viable and extendable, this contribution draws on rationalist approaches for answering the question of why and to whom ...