ISDS: disputes settled, justice denied—the rights against the goods

A world without Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) might well be more just, for ISDS is not concerned with ‘Justice’, but rather with the settlement of international investment disputes. From environmental protection to labour exploitation, from access to natural resources to ‘local communities’, International Investment Agreements and their dispute settlement mechanisms have questioned the State far beyond their originally defined role of investment promotion and protection. So much so that the issue of international investment ‘Justice’ expands to what is ‘Just’ and what is not. Asymmetrical, unequal, and anchored in coloniality, ISDS delivers justice for some while preventing justice from being served on the others. Beyond the righting of legal wrongs, ISDS has developed as a limited form of legal justice, favouring ‘Rights’ and ‘Rules’ over ‘Goods’, hence furthering a sense of global injustice. In a longitudinal and critical fashion, this article explores the question of international investment settlement within (I) and without the law (II) and suggests a fairer approach of Justice beyond adjudication.