In recent years, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has been accused of, among other things, bias towards investors, encroaching on state sovereignty, and being too slow and costly.

Gisèle Stephens-Chu, Joaquin P. Terceño, and Alex Wilbrahem examine the criticisms and how ISDS is changing in response, including procedural reforms, plans for a new investment court system and efforts to rebalance rights and obligations between states and investors.