Following a three-year post-termination transition period to bring investor-state arbitration disputes, the investment protections afforded by Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) finally expired in June 2023. Chapter 11 was one of the most litigated, cited, commented, and copied investment treaties. An important, but largely ignored, part of its legacy is how the making of NAFTA Chapter 11 shaped its subsequent successful diffusion. Combining traditional legal assessment with computational text-as-data analysis, this article shows how the give and take during the negotiations generated buy-in on the part of Mexico and Canada and emulation by Latin American countries who helped to spread NAFTA Chapter 11 language globally. The link between the making and diffusion of NAFTA Chapter 11 highlights the power of negotiated compromise: sharing the pen with others may sometimes be the most effective way to write the rules that come to shape the world.

Rampant unilateralism, insistence on national sovereignty, a wariness of multilateral institutions and third-party adjudication—for international trade lawyers, this is the stuff of nightmares. For international tax lawyers, these are the normal operating parameters of the international tax regime. In fact, the same forces that are currently unraveling the World Trade Organization (WTO) are simultaneously enabling pragmatic and creative reforms of international tax law. Ruth Mason's account of the Transformation of International Tax invites us to draw broader lessons on how international economic law could adapt to survive and even thrive in a political environment increasingly hostile towards WTO-style multilateralism.

This article introduces a novel database on investment treaties called the Electronic Database of Investment Treaties (EDIT). We describe the genesis of the database and what makes EDIT the most comprehensive and systematic database to date. What stands out besides the coverage is that treaties are all provided in one single language (English) and in one single format that is machine-readable. In the second part of the article, we provide selected illustrations on how the data can be used to address research questions in international law, international political economy, and international relations by applying text-as-data methods and by extracting and visualizing data based on EDIT.

There are two ways of thinking about institutional choice in the context of multilateral investment law reform. One starts from abstract principles, asking what policy goal investment law is supposed to achieve and what institutional choice most effectively advances that goal. The other draws on practical experimentation, asking what institutional choices states are making and how these choices perform in real life. Sergio Puig and Gregory Shaffer present a compelling analytical framework for the former, top-down approach to investment law reform. In this essay, I will scrutinize their analysis and argue that the latter, bottom-up approach is more promising.

Every third dispute brought to the WTO and not withdrawn early is settled amicably through a mutually agreed solution (MAS). This includes high-profile and long-standing WTO disputes such as EC–Bananas or Softwood Lumber. By offering a negotiated solution to hard cases, MAS have added stability to the multilateral trading system. MAS, however, also raise concerns. Settlements favour the instant resolution of disputes, but may conflict with third party interests and collective stakes. Where WTO members use their MAS to contract out of WTO law (‘WTO+’/‘WTO–’MAS), the multilateral trading system may be at risk. In addition, new forms of bilateral (interim-)settlements not foreseen in the DSU have recently emerged which currently escape multilateral disciplines. This article assesses how well the DSU balances the competing interests involved in amicable settlements, preserving the contractual flexibility of disputants while safeguarding multilateral interests. Contributing to current DSU reform debates, the article rejects the need for greater MAS enforceability, endorses the strengthening of procedural and substantive safeguards protecting collective stakeholders in settlements, and calls for new DSU disciplines on interim-settlements.