CAN THE ICSID CONVENTION BE A MODEL LAW FOR INVESTMENT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT? : A PERSISTENT SERIES OF QUESTIONS
The proposed question for this study indeed struck me as an unusual one. The ICSID Convention (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) as a “model law” for investment disputes? The idea of having something like a model law, at least according to me, was unheard of in the field of international investment law. In fact, I recalled having studied that the ICSID Convention, also known as the Washington Convention, was not very central to the investment law universe anyway. In any case, wasn’t the whole idea of the ICSID Convention to provide only for settlement of investment disputes? Isn’t that distinct from a “model law”,
something that sovereign nations tailor their legislations on?
As it turns out, the proposed question was also an enormous one. What is model law? The notion of a model law was popularized through the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted in 1985. Surely there existed credible reasons why this particular instrument became accepted as a “model” in the field of commercial arbitration. What could be the possible aspects of a law that contribute to giving it the status of a “model” law?