DOOR, Vol. 2. No. 1., 2026.
Review article
https://doi.org/10.65342/door.2.1.7
Evolution of the Multilateral Investment Court within the UNCITRAL Working Group III: Are We Closer to Systemic Reform?
Fahira Brodlija
orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-1155
Abstract
With the rising number of investment arbitrations resulting in high monetary awards for foreign investors against host States, and increasing criticism of the existing Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) gave its Working Group III (WGIII) a broad mandate to identify and develop necessary reforms at a multilateral level with its member States and other key stakeholders. WGIII identified the costs and duration of proceedings, consistency and coherence of arbitral awards and the independence and impartiality of arbitrators as the main areas of focus in its reform agenda, and proceeded to develop relevant reform solutions. However, at the early stages of WGIII deliberations, it became clear that there were two parallel tracks of reform: one led by the EU, proposing the establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC) as a replacement for investment arbitration, and another prioritised by non-EU, largely developing States, seeking targeted procedural reforms of the existing ISDS system, aligned with their priorities and attainable within a reasonable timeframe.
This article focuses on the evolution of the EU proposal for systemic ISDS reform through the establishment of the MIC and the numerous unresolved questions before WGIII, despite the proposed statute and numerous discussions among delegations. Following the introductory outline of the evolution of the MIC concept within the EU and subsequently within WGIII, the article turns to the current Draft Statute of a Permanent Tribunal for Investment Disputes and the remaining uncertainties before WGIII, including the absence of consensus on the priority level of the procedural and cross-cutting issues that are being discussed simultaneously. Although the answers to these questions remain to be discussed in forthcoming WGIII sessions, a mapping of the open questions may guide EU Member States and aspiring candidates in their transition from the traditional ISDS model and investment arbitration to an investment court in pursuit of better outcomes in investment disputes.
Keywords
Hrčak ID:
347834
URI
Publication date:
15.6.2026.
Visits: 102 *