2025/12/16 by Julien Chaisse · 1 voice
Business, Management and Accounting · Decision Sciences · #Dispute Resolution and Class Actions #Energy Law and Policy #International Arbitration and Investment Law
paper · doi:10.1093/arbint/aiaf029
openalex publication_date 2025/12/16 · openalex created_date 2026/07/04 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/04
Abstract Settlement offers in investor-State arbitration (ISA) occupy a procedurally uncertain and legally under-examined position. Despite their prevalence, there is no established framework governing how such offers are initiated, interpreted, or evaluated. Communications that may influence a tribunal’s continued jurisdiction, affect procedural timing, or shape costs outcomes remain outside clear doctrinal treatment. This article addresses that gap by examining the legal status and procedural effects of settlement offers as they arise within ISA proceedings. It argues that such offers are not merely informal or ancillary but function as procedural acts with legal consequences, in particular when introduced alongside jurisdictional objections, requests for interim measures, or applications related to costs. Based on a structured review of documented ISA disputes, the analysis identifies patterns in the strategic use of settlement offers and in tribunals’ often inconsistent responses. The article introduces a diagnostic institutional approach to explain how ISA’s procedural design permits informal conduct to acquire legal relevance without formal scrutiny. This perspective clarifies how uncertainty around settlement practices contributes to delay, evidentiary ambiguity and uneven risk allocation. The article concludes by proposing specific procedural reforms to improve transparency, consistency and legal coherence in the treatment of settlement offers under ISA.