Abstract:The EU’s proposal to establish a new Investment Court System during the TTIP negotiations has well represented the cumulative resentment of the public, governments, civil societies as well as academics in regard to the existing ISDS mechanism. Such issues as the lack of legitimacy, transparency, consistency, the absence of a review mechanism, and the high burden to public finance in the existing system have been criticized as undermining the sovereignty of the State and its right to regulate for legitimate policy objectives such as the environment, health, and safety. Despite the merits of the existing ISDS mechanism, the increasing demand for improved safeguards against abusive claims and discretionary power of private adjudicators should be adequately addressed in consideration of the democratic principles and the objectives of sustainable development goals. It is also noteworthy that the function of the traditional ISDS system, devised as a preferential instrument for foreign investors, has evolved over time as the distinction between capital-exporting and capital-importing countries became blurred and more attention is focused on the equality and balance of power among domestic and foreign businesses as well as between investors and the host States. In this vein, the establishment of a permanent tribunal and the public appointment of tribunal members with a fixed-term, as proposed by the EU in the new ICS, are indicative of the shifting paradigm in the discourse of treaty-based investor to State arbitration systems. Despite the fact that the system of ICS can hardly solve all of the problems, it may possibly improve the level of legitimacy by incorporating public features of the procedure. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the objective of improving the legitimacy and consistency of the dispute settlement system cannot be achieved without the prospect of establishing a multilateral dispute settlement mechanism with consolidated and harmonized standards of investment rules. Considering the difficulties of reaching a multilateral agreement on investment as witnessed in the past decades, the approach of the Mauritius Convention, which adopted an opt-in mechanism, would be useful as it reduces the risk of failure in negotiations while building a consensus among participants and allowing them to decide when to ratify the Convention in consideration of their domestic circumstances. Considering the extensive network of trade and investment agreements that Korea has concluded in the past decade, it is more than necessary for the Korean government to pay close attention to the recent development in this process and actively participate in discussions on the possibility of establishing a multilateral investment court and the key principles of investment protection and facilitation in international fora.

Balancing security and economics: domestic state-firm relations and investment screening mechanisms in Europe

Mapping the Characteristics of Foreign Investment Screening Mechanisms: The New PRISM Dataset

Foreign investment screening mechanisms and emergent geographies of (post)globalization

Foreign Investment, Strategic Assets and National Security (Table of Contents)

The Protection of Public Health As A Reason For Restricting Trade And Screening Foreign Investments Within The EU Legal Order

National security and the international regime of foreign direct investment: modern challenges and prospects

Directed Internationalized Statism in Germany

The Application of Regulation 452/2019 in Response to Chinese Foreign Direct Investment

The European Unions Proposed Investment Court System: Addressing Criticisms of Investor-State Arbitration While Raising New Challenges

The EU's Investment Court System and Prospects for a New Multilateral Investment Dispute Settlement System

Embedded Neoliberalism and the Legitimacy of the Post-Lisbon European Union Investment Policy

Varieties of state capital: What does foreign state-led investment do in a globalized world?

The legitimacy crisis of investor-state arbitration and the new EU investment court system

Assessing the Normative Legitimacy of Investment Arbitration: The EU’s Investment Court System

National security and FDI policy ambiguity: A commentary

Social services as critical infrastructure – conceptualising and studying the operational core of the social investment state

U.S. national security and de-globalization

State capital in a geoeconomic world: mapping state-led foreign investment in the global political economy

Beyond control? The political economy of private interception, intrusion, and surveillance markets

The Economy–Security Nexus: Risk, Strategic Autonomy and the Regulation of the Semiconductor Supply Chain

Building a hidden investment state? The European Investment Bank, national development banks and European economic governance