TTIP – Panel 2 - Controlling the Arbitration Process

TTIP – Panel 2 - Controlling the Arbitration Process

by Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Law & Justice LBHInternational law: international disputes and civil procedureLBHTInternational law: arbitration
🎙 Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law 👥 1K 📅 January 3, 2017 ⏱ 53 min 👁 457 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-18
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

investment arbitrationTTIPISDSremediesbinding interpretations

Summary

This panel discussion, part of a conference on the TTIP, focuses on controlling the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process. Professor Christoph Schreuer, the main speaker, examines two specific mechanisms from the EU’s TTIP proposal: the restriction of remedies to monetary damages and the possibility of binding interpretations by state parties. He argues that limiting remedies is largely inconsequential, as restitution is rarely ordered in practice, and that satisfaction (declaratory relief) is an underappreciated remedy. However, he cautions against binding interpretations during pending disputes, as they raise fairness concerns. Professor Alain Pellet, the commentator, largely agrees but adds that the right to regulate is not a phantom problem, and he emphasizes the need for a permanent review mechanism to ensure consistency. The discussion highlights the tension between state control and investor protection in international investment law.

135 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The panel provides valuable insights into the technical aspects of ISDS reform, drawing on extensive case law and treaty provisions. Schreuer’s argumentation is rigorous, systematically analyzing the ILC Articles and relevant arbitral awards. Pellet offers a complementary perspective, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the need for a permanent appellate body. The discussion is well-reasoned and contributes to the scholarly debate on TTIP.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The speakers demonstrate high scientific rigor, referencing authoritative sources such as the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, NAFTA, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The title accurately reflects the content, focusing on controlling arbitration. The panel is part of an academic event, ensuring credibility. No public comments were provided for analysis.

133 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the panel's focus on mechanisms to control arbitration, including remedies and binding interpretations.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

High-level academic panel with renowned experts in international investment law, providing rigorous legal analysis grounded in treaty provisions and case law. The discussion is well-structured and references authoritative sources such as the ILC Articles and NAFTA.

Key Moments

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

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • European Commission's TTIP proposal — The EU's official proposal for the investment chapter in TTIP, discussed in the panel.

Contribution & Novelties

The panel offers a nuanced analysis of specific EU proposals for ISDS reform, particularly the restriction of remedies and binding interpretations. It contributes to the debate by clarifying the practical implications of these mechanisms and highlighting potential fairness concerns.

Pour aller plus loin :

84 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in information quality and technical level, reflecting the expert nature of the discussion. The lower score in quantity of information is due to the focused scope of the panel, while the overall reliability is high.

Reliability 8/10