A Perplexing Paradox : 'De-Statification' of 'Investor-State' Dispute Settlement?

This Essay considers the perplexingly paradoxical demand that states be virtually removed from investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It also briefly considers the various critiques of, and possible reforms or adjustments to, existing ISDS systems, particularly those related to the right of state parties to pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, the environment or public morals; social or consumer protection; or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity. Also considered are data and details of the involvement of African states in ISDS. The apparent “diversity deficit” pertaining to the participation of African nationals as arbitrators and counsel in investment arbitrations is discussed as are proposals for the inclusion, integration, and utilization of more African nationals into ISDS systems