This chapter discusses the relationship between the rule of law and innovation, holding that the rule of law protects rights, not interests. Protecting interests is incompatible with market competition and hinders innovation and entrepreneurship. By comparing Great Britain and France during the first and second industrial revolutions, this chapter shows that the protection of rights is related to the rise and fall of a country. Innovation grows out of an ecosystem of free competition. Artificial prohibitions on innovation stifle it.

The future of ISDS is at a historic crossroads. In this final chapter we provide an overview of the ISDS reform process in the UNCITRAL and discuss the EU proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court in the context of this reform. First, we contextualise the current ISDS reform against earlier attempts to negotiate multilateral international investment agreements to explain how the current reform is different. Second, we discuss the scope of the reform and its process in the framework of UNCITRAL, particularly focusing on the identified ISDS concerns. Third, we outline the reform options that have emerged in the discussion and explain their correlation to the EU’s MIC proposal. In the final part of this chapter, we consider the potential contributions that an MIC could make to the rule of law and the legitimacy of international investment law. While the negotiations are set to conclude in 2025, the aim of this chapter is to place the EU’s proposal in the broader ISDS reform context and reflect on its external challenges in this reform process.

Public and political controversies over Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) have prompted reform processes at international and regional levels. As an emerging actor in this field, the European Union (EU) has been particularly active in shaping new developments, within and outside the EU, and proposing the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). This research examines the underlying reasons and ways in which the EU has been shaping the field of international investment law (IIL) in order to address its own and global ISDS problems. The analysis of EU law and policy solutions envisioned to reform investment law in this book is undertaken in light of the IIL controversies, the EU constitutional and legal framework and the rule of law and legitimacy, as the normative goals of the ISDS reforms. In doing so, this book evaluates the contribution of the EU to the development of international law in the field of investment.

The legitimacy crisis of ISDS in Europe has prompted the EU – an emerging actor in international investment law – to reform this field. In particular, the EU reform was designed to enhance the rule of law in international investment law, as a means of legitimising the field. However, the reform of international investment law has ultimately exposed the clash of different visions of the rule of law in international law and the multifaceted nature of this concept. The purpose of this book was to evaluate the EU’s vision and its contribution to the development of international law in the field of investment. In particular, the book sought to assess whether the EU reform addresses the key international investment law problems and in doing so contributes to the achievement of the rule of law and legitimacy. To answer this question, a substantial analysis was undertaken of EU investment law and policy in both its internal dimension (Part II) and external relations (Part III), and placed in the broader context of international investment law and its reform (Part I). As many scholars have written about international investment law, what value does this book add? The following observations encapsulate the findings of this research and attest to its relevance and contribution to the international investment law reform debate.

The Investment Court System is the core feature of the EU international investment policy. In its Opinion 1/17 the CJEU confirmed the legality of the new ICS in CETA under EU law, providing important legal and policy implications for the future co-existence of EU law and international investment law. This chapter offers a critical assessment of the ICS, examined through the CJEU’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17. First, we discuss the nature of the ICS in relation to the EU judicial system. Second, we consider the effects of the ICS on the autonomy of the CJEU and the interpretation of EU law. Finally, we focus on the main features of the ICS in light of the rule-of-law criteria, as the core EU value. Where relevant, the CJEU’s Opinion is supplemented by remarks of late Advocate General Bot, which uncover a number of relevant political considerations. The design and functioning of the ICS thus provide important insights into the EU’s understanding of the rule of law in international investment law, which is ultimately envisaged to be implemented through a Multilateral Investment Court.

The conclusion situates the politics of legal pluralism within a comparative perspective by contrasting Chechnya with other Russian regions and other contexts of postcolonial and post-conflict political development. The concluding chapter discusses the broader implications of this study for our understanding of the “dark side” of legal pluralism as an instrument of domination and of state law as a “weapon of the weak.” It outlines a future research agenda on the role of international law in legally pluralist environments and legal pluralism in diasporas. Finally, the chapter reflects on the implications of the findings for post-Soviet Russian politics and asks why the Kremlin allows Kadyrov’s lawfare.