True or False: Thanks to Reforms Proposed Under the Auspices of the ICSID and UNCITRAL, Investor-State Dispute Settlement is Finally Headed in the Right Direction? - Chapter 9 - Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law - Volume 14
MR. TODD WEILER: Welcome everybody to Juris’s 14th annual conference on investment treaty law and arbitration. This year’s topic is Evidence of Systemic Reform: True or False. Our host, of course, is Juris conferences, which is part of Juris Publishing, which is a leading publisher in the legal field. They’ve hosted over 100 conferences and of that in person variety all of you may recall over the years, and this is one of their first forays into the virtual conference entirely online. It began two weeks ago, and this is a third of our four 90-minute seminars, which reflects the four-session model that we previously did in the live version. This week we’re going to address the topic of whether investment state dispute settlement is on the right track, thanks to ICSID and UNCITRAL reforms that are currently underway. And next week, Tim Nelson of Skadden Arps, one of our longtime supporters, will be moderating a panel that was put together by Miriam Harwood, and it will be on whether security for costs should be mandated for investor state arbitration. And then I should mention that on the 23rd, we’ve put together a live version of Lucinda Low’s keynote address, which everyone will be able to attend. I think our time is going to be four o’clock eastern standard time on the 23rd, if I recall correctly, so you’ll be hearing more about that. And of course, we thank Lucinda and we have other people that we need to thank as well for their participation. We have Crowell and Moring, Skadden Arps, Curtis, Mallet, Dentons (we have a Dentons rep today), Steptoe, Millbank, New York international arbitration Center, the Brazil center for arbitration and mediation, ICSID, and of course, TDM OGEMID, which have been helping us spread the word on this event.