Nicholson, James; Gaffney, John

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


  • thumnail for No-123-Nicholson-and-Gaffney-FINAL-CHINESE-version.pdf No-123-Nicholson-and-Gaffney-FINAL-CHINESE-version.pdf application/pdf 366 KB Download File

More About This Work

Academic Units
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia FDI Perspectives, 123
Published Here
March 6, 2024