THE AUTHORS:
Zahra Hosseinpour, LL.M. Candidate in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po
As part of her residency as Bredin Prat Distinguished Visiting Scholar 2026, Professor Andrea K. Bjorklund spent an intensive academic week with students of the Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) LL.M. at Sciences Po Law School. The seminar, entitled Strategy, Advocacy, and Policy-Making in Investment Treaty Arbitration, was delivered in a practicum format over five days and fifteen hours of teaching.
Within the broader TADS LL.M. curriculum, the seminar played a distinctive pedagogical role. While many core courses emphasize the doctrinal foundations of international arbitration and public international law, Professor Bjorklund’s seminar was designed as a practicum aimed at bridging theory and practice. It invited students to move beyond the interpretation of treaty provisions and arbitral awards and to engage with the strategic, institutional, and political dimensions that shape how investment disputes are argued and decided in real-world settings.
By integrating historical analysis, procedural design, and policy-oriented reflection, the seminar complemented existing courses on international arbitration and dispute settlement by introducing students to the dynamics of advocacy and decision-making under geopolitical pressure. In this sense, the week-long intensive module functioned as an integrative learning experience, enabling students to bring together doctrinal knowledge with practical reasoning and to critically assess the role of investor–State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) within contemporary global governance.
Rather than approaching investment treaty arbitration solely through doctrinal analysis, the seminar invited students to examine the field through the lenses of strategy, institutional design, and political context. Using the landmark arbitration Methanex Corporation v. United States as a central reference point, the sessions explored how legal argumentation, procedural choices, and state policy interact in shaping both outcomes and legitimacy in ISDS.
This academic engagement also serves as an intellectual prelude to Professor Bjorklund’s upcoming keynote public lecture at Bredin Prat on 10 February 2026, entitled “ISDS in the Face of Geopolitical Crises”. Readers are invited to attend the public lecture, which will expand upon the themes introduced during the seminar, including sanctions regimes, national security measures, and the evolving role of international adjudication in politically sensitive disputes.
An Institutional Exchange at the Outset of the Fellowship
Professor Bjorklund is a Full Professor and holder of the L. Yves Fortier Chair in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law at McGill University Faculty of Law. She serves on the panels of arbitrators of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) and the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), and has held leading academic and institutional roles in the field of international law and arbitration. Her scholarly work on investment treaty arbitration, state responsibility, and transnational dispute resolution is widely published and accessible through the Jus Mundi and Jus Connect databases.
Her appointment as Bredin Prat Distinguished Visiting Scholar reflects a shared commitment by Bredin Prat and Sciences Po Law School to promoting dialogue between academic research and professional practice in international arbitration and to offering students direct engagement with contemporary debates in the field.
Marking the start of her fellowship, Professor Bjorklund participated in a closed-door discussion with students of the TADS LL.M. and partners of Bredin Prat’s Arbitration Practice. Conducted under Chatham House rules, the exchange created a space for open and candid reflection on the themes that would shape the seminar, including advocacy, institutional design, and the growing interaction between investment arbitration and geopolitical considerations.
This initial dialogue set the tone for the week by situating the classroom discussions within a broader professional and institutional context. It underscored the Fellowship’s objective of facilitating meaningful exchange between academic inquiry and arbitral practice, and highlighted the value of engaging students directly with practitioners confronting these issues in real disputes.
Establishing the Framework: Strategy, History, and the Methanex Case
The seminar opened with a historical and strategic overview of investment treaty arbitration, using Methanex v. United States as a foundational case study. Professor Bjorklund traced the evolution of ISDS from earlier mechanisms of diplomatic protection and claims commissions to modern treaty-based arbitration under instruments such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1992) Chapter 11.
Students were encouraged to view arbitration not merely as a neutral legal forum, but as a system shaped by strategic choices and political realities. The case illustrated the tension between the promise of depoliticization and the persistence of geopolitical considerations. Advocacy was presented as a process of framing disputes in ways that resonate simultaneously with legal doctrine and broader policy concerns.
This opening session established a central theme of the seminar: investment arbitration operates at the intersection of law, strategy, and international politics, and cannot be understood through doctrinal analysis alone.
Procedural Strategy and the Politics of Legitimacy
The second session focused on procedural decisions as a core dimension of advocacy and legitimacy. Particular attention was given to the choice of the arbitral seat and the conduct of hearings in the Methanex arbitration, including the decision to hold hearings at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., which enabled unprecedented public access.
Drawing on the UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings (2016), the discussion highlighted criteria such as neutrality, enforceability, convenience, and proximity of evidence, and examined them as strategic tools with political implications for public perception and institutional credibility.
The session further addressed the distinctive position of States as parties to arbitration. Issues such as inter-agency coordination, visa restrictions, sanctions regimes, and bureaucratic constraints demonstrated how geopolitical realities shape procedural choices. Arbitrator selection emerged as another strategic decision influenced by expertise, reputation, language skills, availability, and ethical considerations, as well as concerns regarding repeat appointments and diversity.
Through these discussions, students were invited to reconsider procedural design as a site where legitimacy, power, and geopolitics intersect.
Practicum in Arbitrator Selection and Ethical Dilemmas
The third day adopted a strongly practical orientation through a role-playing exercise based on a hypothetical dispute between a gold mining investor and Venezuela. The scenario was examined against the backdrop of Venezuela’s current geopolitical situation, particularly in light of recent actions taken by the United States in relation to the Maduro government, which have significantly intensified the international and political dimensions of any potential dispute involving Venezuela.
Professor Bjorklund emphasized that once a case becomes entangled with U.S. sanctions enforcement and foreign policy considerations, the legal framework of the dispute is no longer confined to bilateral treaty obligations alone. In such circumstances, arbitrator selection acquires heightened strategic importance. Students were tasked with proposing arbitrators for both claimant and respondent and evaluating which qualities arbitrators should possess in disputes shaped by geopolitical pressures, including independence, perceived neutrality, experience with politically sensitive cases, and the risk of bias linked to nationality or prior governmental affiliations.
The exercise revealed contrasting strategic approaches: claimant-appointed arbitrators were frequently selected for their expertise in natural resources and investment disputes, while respondent-appointed arbitrators were valued for their background in public international law and prior government service. These choices reflected deeper assumptions about how legal reasoning interacts with state sovereignty and regulatory authority.
Ethical considerations featured prominently throughout the discussion, particularly questions of independence, repeat appointments, prior representation of States, and the emerging Code of Conduct for Adjudicators developed within UNCITRAL Working Group III. The debate illustrated that disclosure obligations constitute a political compromise rather than a definitive solution to concerns surrounding conflicts of interest and so-called “double hatting”.
Overall, the practicum demonstrated that arbitrator appointment is not merely a procedural step, but a strategic decision shaped by geopolitical context, client expectations, and institutional trust in the legitimacy of ISDS.
Transparency, Public Participation, and Democratic Tensions
The fourth session examined transparency and public participation as central challenges to the legitimacy of ISDS. Using Methanex as a turning point, Professor Bjorklund traced how demands for openness emerged from political pressure, media scrutiny, and freedom-of-information regimes rather than from doctrinal innovation.
The evolution of institutional responses, from the NAFTA Free Trade Commission’s Note of Interpretation (2001) to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency (2013) and the Mauritius Convention on Transparency (2014), illustrated both the ambition of reform and the reluctance of States to fully embrace it. Despite formal advances, ratification remains limited and uneven.
Particular attention was devoted to amicus curiae submissions and the role of non-disputing participants. While such interventions were initially welcomed as a response to the democratic deficit of ISDS, the discussions revealed deeper tensions concerning representation, expertise, and procedural fairness. Questions arose as to whether amici genuinely speak for the public interest or risk reinforcing asymmetries between the parties.
The session underscored that transparency and participation are not neutral reforms, but politically charged features of contemporary arbitration practice.
State Control, Treaty Interpretation, and the Reform of ISDS
The final session turned to the growing role of States in shaping treaty interpretation and the future architecture of ISDS. Through the examination of amicus submissions and non-disputing State Party interventions, students explored how governments seek to reclaim interpretive authority over investment treaties.
The controversial 2001 NAFTA Free Trade Commission Note of Interpretation of Article 1105 served as a focal point. Its retroactive application to pending cases raised fundamental questions about the boundary between interpretation and amendment, and about the independence of arbitral adjudication.
These debates were situated within contemporary reform efforts under UNCITRAL Working Group III and proposals for a Multilateral Investment Court, reflecting the European Union’s reform agenda. While these initiatives aim to enhance coherence, predictability, and ethical standards, they also raise concerns about politicization, unequal participation, and the limits of procedural reform in addressing disputes rooted in geopolitical conflict.
The session concluded that ISDS increasingly functions as a forum where law, sovereignty, and international power dynamics converge.
Conclusion: From Seminar to Keynote
Professor Bjorklund’s seminar offered students a rare opportunity to engage with investment treaty arbitration as a living system shaped by strategy, institutional design, and geopolitical realities. By combining doctrinal analysis, practical exercises, and policy-oriented reflection, the course demonstrated how advocacy choices influence not only outcomes but also the legitimacy of the system itself.
The intellectual trajectory of the week naturally leads into Professor Bjorklund’s upcoming keynote public lecture at Bredin Prat, “ISDS in the Face of Geopolitical Crises”. The seminar’s exploration of sanctions, transparency, arbitrator ethics, state interpretive authority, and reform initiatives provides a foundation for addressing how ISDS should respond to an increasingly politicized international environment.
At a time when disputes arising from geopolitical tensions are likely to multiply, the seminar underscored the importance of understanding ISDS not only as a legal mechanism, but as a stage on which international law, policy-making, and power politics are simultaneously negotiated. Readers are invited to attend Professor Bjorklund’s keynote lecture at Bredin Prat on 10 February 2026, where these themes will be further explored in a broader discussion on the future of ISDS in times of geopolitical crisis. Details regarding attendance and registration are available through official communications of Sciences Po Law School and Bredin Prat.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zahra Hosseinpour is an Iranian legal counsel with over four years of experience in domestic and international dispute resolution, including commercial arbitration and mediation. She also holds an academic background in public international law. She is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po, Paris.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
