"Countries say inconsistency in ISDS needs reform", 4 May 2018

Countries reviewing the United Nations framework for settling investor-state disputes say the current system is inconsistent and possesses inadequate tools for reviewing contested arbitration awards, according to a new report...[Opponents warn] it allows multinational corporations to skip inconvenient domestic laws and seek unappealable awards...Members said they were concerned about a lack of transparency in the proceedings, frivolous claims and instances of third parties funding disputes. Arbitrators have the appearance of being either pro-state or pro-investor based upon their previous appointments, and the perception that three-member tribunals were polarized meant that the cases were effectively decided by a single, neutral, presiding arbitrator.