2014 Reports
Cost allocation in investment arbitration: Forward toward incentivization
Vasani and Ugale suggested that, from a claimant’s perspective, “the traditional approach encourages arbitration” while “CFtE is largely a deterrent” to investment treaty arbitration and “makes arbitration less appealing to claimants (and would-be third-party funders), more risky and/or outright economically unviable.” 2 They concluded that “a default CFtE custom in the context of ICSID seems inapposite just at a time when [CFtE] appears to be gaining popularity”3 and argue that a harmonized approach to cost allocation between ICSID and commercial forums is likely inappropriate. While we welcome that the authors have initiated a renewed debate on this issue, and note that they raise a range of other objections to CFtE in the context of ICSID, we disagree with their criticism of CFtE as a deterrent to claimants. We suggest that CFtE incentivises meritorious claims while discouraging frivolous or weak claims.4
Subjects
Files
- No-123-Nicholson-and-Gaffney-FINAL1.pdf application/pdf 156 KB Download File
More About This Work
- Academic Units
- Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
- Publisher
- Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
- Series
- Columbia FDI Perspectives, 123
- Published Here
- April 6, 2015
Related Items
- Version of:
- 投资仲裁中的成本分担:基于激励的角度