J. Marcoux, Andrea K Bjorklund, Elizabeth A Whitsitt, Lukas Vanhonnaeker
{"title":"关于国际投资争端解决机制改革的讨论:联合国国际贸易法委员会第三工作组与国际投资争端解决中心程序的比较","authors":"J. Marcoux, Andrea K Bjorklund, Elizabeth A Whitsitt, Lukas Vanhonnaeker","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgae017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been tackled by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group (WG) III. Despite different objectives, both processes have relied on written submissions from various stakeholders. What are the structures and the narratives underlying the discourses of ISDS reform in these organizations? This article explores the content of 172 submissions by using mixed methods. It demonstrates that UNCITRAL WG III has involved less structured submissions whose content has expanded the initial mandate, with narratives encapsulating deeper disagreement among participants. By contrast, ICSID operated through a common pattern across submissions and a stronger focus on procedural issues, with less disagreement revealed in its narratives. The article proceeds in three steps. First, it compares the structure of discourses for each reform process by aggregating the content of submissions through computational analysis. Second, it relies on critical discourse analysis to reveal narratives that have emerged in each process. Lastly, the article explores submissions from actors who have participated in both processes to illustrate how they have navigated the tension between structures and narratives when reforming international investment arbitration.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discourses of ISDS reform: a comparison of UNCITRAL Working Group III and ICSID processes\",\"authors\":\"J. Marcoux, Andrea K Bjorklund, Elizabeth A Whitsitt, Lukas Vanhonnaeker\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jiel/jgae017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been tackled by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group (WG) III. Despite different objectives, both processes have relied on written submissions from various stakeholders. What are the structures and the narratives underlying the discourses of ISDS reform in these organizations? This article explores the content of 172 submissions by using mixed methods. It demonstrates that UNCITRAL WG III has involved less structured submissions whose content has expanded the initial mandate, with narratives encapsulating deeper disagreement among participants. By contrast, ICSID operated through a common pattern across submissions and a stronger focus on procedural issues, with less disagreement revealed in its narratives. The article proceeds in three steps. First, it compares the structure of discourses for each reform process by aggregating the content of submissions through computational analysis. Second, it relies on critical discourse analysis to reveal narratives that have emerged in each process. Lastly, the article explores submissions from actors who have participated in both processes to illustrate how they have navigated the tension between structures and narratives when reforming international investment arbitration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Economic Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Economic Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae017\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Economic Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Discourses of ISDS reform: a comparison of UNCITRAL Working Group III and ICSID processes
The reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been tackled by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group (WG) III. Despite different objectives, both processes have relied on written submissions from various stakeholders. What are the structures and the narratives underlying the discourses of ISDS reform in these organizations? This article explores the content of 172 submissions by using mixed methods. It demonstrates that UNCITRAL WG III has involved less structured submissions whose content has expanded the initial mandate, with narratives encapsulating deeper disagreement among participants. By contrast, ICSID operated through a common pattern across submissions and a stronger focus on procedural issues, with less disagreement revealed in its narratives. The article proceeds in three steps. First, it compares the structure of discourses for each reform process by aggregating the content of submissions through computational analysis. Second, it relies on critical discourse analysis to reveal narratives that have emerged in each process. Lastly, the article explores submissions from actors who have participated in both processes to illustrate how they have navigated the tension between structures and narratives when reforming international investment arbitration.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of International Economic Law is dedicated to encouraging thoughtful and scholarly attention to a very broad range of subjects that concern the relation of law to international economic activity, by providing the major English language medium for publication of high-quality manuscripts relevant to the endeavours of scholars, government officials, legal professionals, and others. The journal"s emphasis is on fundamental, long-term, systemic problems and possible solutions, in the light of empirical observations and experience, as well as theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.