Abstract

Investment arbitration, although advantageous in many respects, has recently faced a legitimacy crisis especially due to inconsistent awards rendered by different arbitral tribunals. The crisis has raised many concerns regarding the system of ISDS, to the extent that some states and scholars have called for extensive systemic, structural and regulatory reforms. To address these criticisms and to find a solution for the ongoing crisis, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) mandated its Working Group III in 2017 to deal with issue. Discussions and analyses of the Working Group are still ongoing and expected to be concluded in the near future. This article focuses on the issue of ISDS reform and the work of Working Group III, highlighting a model which has been almost disregarded in the discussions to date. The authors have examined certain structural or regulatory aspects of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the most important and widely-accepted body for settlement of sport disputes, and have provided recommendations for the applicability of the CAS experience to ISDS. The article then concludes that the present discussions and debate on ISDS reform in WG III should pay more careful heed to CAS and its achievements, and adapt them to the specific needs and characterizations of investment disputes.