Investment Dispute Prevention and Management Agencies
Toward a more informed policy discussion
The establishment of an agency to prevent and manage investment disputes is often perceived as a way for countries to attract investment while managing the risks associated with disputes—but little is known about the design, operation, or effectiveness of such agencies. This report starts to fill that gap so policy-makers can make more informed decisions.
-
While investment DPMAs are often promoted as a solution to investment disputes, few states have established such agencies, and there is considerable variation in their design and operation.
-
There are some major risks associated with DPMAs that are not reflected in claims they can solve current challenges associated with investment disputes.
-
Governments should consider their investment goals, the different options for achieving them, and the risks involved before deciding whether to establish a dispute prevention and management agency.
Foreign investment can provide much-needed financial resources for developing countries, but the risk of costly claims under the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system can counteract these benefits. Investment dispute prevention and management agencies (DPMAs) are therefore frequently touted as a potential solution to the ISDS challenge, but how much do we know about them?
Only a relatively small number of states have established such agencies and there is considerable variation in their design and operation. This report reviews and analyzes how they operate and what effects they have had. It seeks to contribute to a more informed and evidence-based policy discussion.
The report starts by situating DPMAs in the context of wider discussions about investment governance, pulling apart some of the assumptions regarding the inevitability of ISDS risks and the underlying drivers of investment disputes. It then reviews and compares existing DPMAs in seven different states, drawing attention to the risks and benefits associated with them and how they operate in relation to other systems of investment governance.
You might also be interested in
Decoding the Belt and Road Initiative’s Legal Architecture
This article unpacks the Belt and Road Initiative's legal architecture—covering hard law (such as treaties and contracts), soft law (such as memoranda of understanding), and the unique role of China's state-owned enterprises—and sets out recommendations for host country policy-makers on how to navigate this hybrid legal environment.
What Happened in Santa Marta?
What happened at the first international conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels? IISD experts share 7 takeaways and discuss what comes next.
Tax Incentives in National Investment Laws
This report maps the design, legal structure, and governance arrangements of tax incentives across 105 national investment laws to support better coordination among the institutions that shape these policies and help countries attract quality investment.
Understanding Investor–State Dispute Settlement in the Mining Sector
This brief introduces investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) for mining policy-makers and shows how understanding it helps governments design clearer rules, manage permits and contracts, prevent costly disputes, and protect policy spaces while maintaining a predictable investment climate.