A key problem in the investment treaty field is that the balance of interpretive power between treaty parties and tribunals is askew. States entering into investment treaties establish dual roles for themselves as treaty parties (with an interest in interpretation) and actual or potential respondents in investor-state disputes (with an interest in avoiding liability). By viewing states primarily as respondents rather than also as treaty parties, investment tribunals often overlook or undervalue the relevance of the treaty parties' subsequent agreements and practice. This article seeks to redress this imbalance by proposing an interpretive approach that takes better account of such evidenc
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.