TTIP – Panel 1 - Increasing the Legitimacy of ISDS

Item: TTIP – Panel 1 - Increasing the Legitimacy of ISDS
Rating: 4
Author: PostSingularity Institute

by Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Law & Justice LBBMPublic international law: economic and trade LBBM3Public international law, economic and trade: investment treaties and disputes

🎙 Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law 👥 1K 📅 February 1, 2016 ⏱ 46 min 👁 1K 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-18

Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

ISDSinvestment arbitrationlegitimacyreformTTIP

Summary

The panel, chaired by Professor Matthew Happold, features Jeremy Sharpe and Stephan Schill discussing the legitimacy of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Sharpe outlines common criticisms of ISDS, such as lack of transparency, inconsistency, and threats to regulatory autonomy. He identifies four responses: ignoring criticism, eliminating ISDS, replacing it with a different model (like the EU’s investment court), or addressing criticisms through incremental reforms. He then details five areas of reform: clearer treaty drafting, enhanced coherence through non-disputing party submissions, narrowing claims and claimants, better control over arbitration procedures, and preserving regulatory space. Sharpe argues that the current bilateral system allows for dynamic evolution and adaptation, but questions whether an international investment court is politically viable. Schill then discusses the fragmentation of reform efforts and the need for a normative framework based on constitutional law principles. He suggests that ISDS constitutes public governance and must meet constitutional standards of legitimacy. He proposes using comparative constitutional law and international principles, such as those in the UN Charter, to guide reform. The discussion highlights differing US and EU approaches to reform and the challenges of achieving global consensus.

185 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The value of the information is high, as it provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of ISDS reform from two experienced practitioners and academics. Sharpe’s categorization of reform areas is insightful and well-supported with examples from recent treaties like TPP and CETA. Schill’s normative framing adds depth, connecting the legitimacy crisis to constitutional values. The argumentation is solid, with logical progression and clear reasoning. However, the discussion is one-sided, focusing on incremental reform rather than radical alternatives, and the speakers’ perspectives may be influenced by their professional backgrounds.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The speakers demonstrate strong rigor, referencing specific treaties (TPP, CETA), cases (Mesa v. Canada), and institutional reports (UNCTAD). The sources are credible and relevant. The title accurately reflects the content. The video is a panel discussion, so it is not peer-reviewed, but the expertise of the speakers lends credibility. The description provides a link to the event page, which is a reliable source for context.

170 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the panel's focus on increasing the legitimacy of ISDS, as the speakers discuss various reform proposals and their implications.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The video features two recognized experts in international investment law (Jeremy Sharpe and Stephan Schill) discussing ISDS reform in a formal academic setting. The arguments are well-structured and grounded in legal practice and theory, with references to specific treaties and cases. However, it is a panel discussion with no formal peer review, and the content reflects the speakers' perspectives rather than a comprehensive review of all viewpoints.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

Event page: TTIP – Framing the Adequate System for Investor-State Dispute Settlement — Official event page providing context for the panel discussion.

Concurring Sources

UNCTAD World Investment Report — UNCTAD reports on investment trends and ISDS cases, supporting the speakers' claims about the number of disputes and reform efforts.

Dissenting Sources

Public Citizen report on ISDS — This report presents a critical view of ISDS, arguing that it undermines democratic governance, which contrasts with the speakers' more favorable assessment of incremental reforms.

Contribution & Novelties

The video provides a nuanced expert perspective on ISDS reform, highlighting the tension between incremental reforms and more radical proposals like an investment court. It offers a valuable synthesis of current reform trends and introduces a constitutional law framework for evaluating legitimacy. The discussion is particularly useful for understanding the US-EU divide on reform approaches.

Pour aller plus loin :

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) — Overview of ISDS and its criticisms.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) — Background on the TTIP negotiations.
UNCTAD’s work on ISDS reform — Official UNCTAD resources on ISDS reform.

95 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quantity and quality of information, reflecting the dense expert discussion. The technical level is moderately high, indicating a specialized audience. The overall reliability is strong due to the speakers' expertise and use of concrete examples.

Reliability 8/10