Articles
Abstract
International investment disputes occupy a curious place in the research programme on compliance. On the one hand, there is a widespread presumption that respondent states generally pay the compensation that they are ordered to pay because not doing so risks more litigation or less investment. On the other hand, these disputes frequently continue long after awards are handed down, there are visible instances of non-payment and there is little evidence about if or how most disputes are actually resolved. Compliance with investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards has also been difficult to study because much of what occurs after an arbitral decision falls outside traditional understandings of compliance processes. Therefore, in this article, we introduce a broader term – resolution – and look beyond payment at a wider landscape of post-award dynamics. We also introduce a framework to bring these dynamics into view. This framework places awards in the context of longer-term bargaining and articulates how bargaining is different when it occurs in the shadow of an award. We present three mechanisms through which awards can shape outcomes – as a legitimate outcome, as a coordinating focal point, or as a bargaining endowment – before arguing that the third mechanism is the most common in the context of ISDS.