Positions at a glance
Supporters
ICS is intended as a transitional step toward a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), a project the EU and partners have pursued through UNCITRAL Working Group III since 2017. Critics, including some civil-society coalitions, argue ICS still privileges foreign investors over domestic litigants and does not address the substantive standards (such as fair and equitable treatment) that drive controversial awards. Supporters counter that institutionalisation, tenure, and appellate review materially improve legitimacy compared with ad hoc arbitration under ICSID or UNCITRAL rules.
Opponents
The Investment Court System (ICS) is the European Union's reform model for resolving disputes between foreign investors and host states. It was developed in response to widespread criticism of traditional investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration, which critics argued lacked transparency, allowed inconsistent rulings, and gave arbitrators with private-sector ties too much discretion over public-interest regulation.
Research it like a delegate
Research on modeldiplomat.com
Ask a follow-up about Investment Court System
Open a cited briefing in Model Diplomat search — timelines, positions, and sources you can use in committee or exam answers.
Start research on Investment Court SystemExample
In its April 2019 Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Investment Court System established in CETA between the EU and Canada is compatible with EU law.
Keep learning