Brooklyn Journal of International Law


Emily Osmanski

First Page



As the world has transitioned from national; isolated economies with localized issues into a globalized and interconnected economy with cross-border disputes; the law has struggled to keep up. Recent trade negotiations have highlighted the difficulty states face in promoting trade; while also creating a fair; accessible; and equitable forum for producers and consumers with nationalities touching every area of the globe. For several decades; Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has been in place to address claims brought by foreign investors against the host states. External improvements have helped support foreign direct investment and the ISDS model of dispute resolution; such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Even with refinements of ISDS; opponents continue to argue that the best days of ISDS have come and gone; contending that the system requires a major overhaul or a new forum all together. The European Union has responded by proposing an alternative multilateral investment court (“Investment Court System”); hoping to address many of the flaws and limitations ISDS faces. If successful; it could be expanded to the globally accepted forum. This Note argues that although the Investment Court System does not resolve all concerns raised against ISDS; it is the best solution proposed thus far. Specifically; this Note demonstrates how the Investor Court System will improve and alter international trade dispute resolution by further promoting fairness; transparency; and cohesiveness in ways ISDS currently does not.