Introduction

Investment law, one of the fastest growing areas of international law, has emerged from the proliferation of bilateral and multilateral international investment agreements (IIAs). More than 2,600 IIAs have been negotiated, involving almost all countries. Most of these agreements provide for international arbitration as the means to settle disputes between investors and the host country.

Many scholars argue that the emergence of multiple and varied mechanisms for the settlement of economic disputes and of treaties providing for investment arbitration may be exacerbating what is called a ‘fragmentation’ process of international law. Today, economic actors seeking relief under international law may be forced to go to different courts or tribunals in order to seek compliance (i.e. conformity to the rules of a particular regime, including dispute-resolution and interpretation provisions) and/or economic compensation for the State's breach of its obligations. This may be increasing the risk that tribunals will come to inconsistent, conflicting and incompatible decisions. Faced with this danger, the question addressed in this chapter is as follows: in the absence of a homogeneous, hierarchical meta-system capable of doing away with problems derived from multiple and varied mechanisms for the settlement of economic disputes, can agreed procedural tools be a source of co-ordination?