Conclusion

Abstract

The monograph examined whether CETA constitutes a positive response to the legitimacy crisis facing investment arbitration by asking whether the reforms introduced in CETA’s Investment Chapter are consistent with the Rule of Law. This endeavor ultimately paved the way for the monograph to argue that CETA’s Investment Chapter is unlikely to completely overcome the legitimacy crisis facing investment arbitration. In the second chapter, it was highlighted that the reasons behind the legitimacy crisis are the lack of transparency and consistency in decision-making as well as the reluctance of arbitrators to take into consideration non-investment considerations. It was also highlighted that the high costs associated with investment disputes raise concerns over the ability of financially weak parties to access investment arbitration. The ‘double-hatting’ phenomenon, in combination with the party-appointed mechanisms of investment arbitration, raises further concerns about the integrity of the proceedings. The second chapter indicates that these features are rooted in history and the private law foundations of investment arbitration.