ABSTRACT
This chapter deals with the nature of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) and its flaws, the viability of the various alternatives proposed in terms of improving the current system procedurally through transparency and amicus participation. It considers the different categories of investment disputes and the effect they have had on African states and their right to regulate. The length of time spent on ISDS has led to increased costs. On the average, it takes a case to be concluded in international arbitration, a time period significantly less than what most jurisdictions will take to finalise a case. Transparency facilitates the accountability of parties in the ISDS process and as a result, compliance and implementation of ISDS decisions by parties may be more effective. To advance the transparency agenda, various stakeholders have a role to play. Civil society can actively push on the level of negotiating new international investment agreements (IIAs) or in the review of existing IIAs for active public participation.
