PIL.OT / DEVELOPMENT
PIL.OTv0.62.2
In an article published in the Journal of International Arbitration, Joaquín Moreno-Pampín examines the relationship between procedural design and accessibility in investor–State dispute settlement. The article argues that the increasing proceduralisation of contemporary investment arbitration has generated growing disproportionality between adjudicatory architecture and the scale of many investment disputes through multi-phase proceedings, extensive document production, expert-heavy evidentiary processes and expanding procedural expectations. These developments have progressively transformed investor–State dispute settlement into an increasingly resource-intensive system.
The article develops the concept of procedural proportionality as a structural principle of adjudicatory design and argues that procedural rules do not merely organise arbitration, but also shape the practical conditions under which access to adjudication becomes possible. Developments such as the Prague Rules, expedited arbitration procedures and tribunal-led case management reflect an emerging institutional recognition that procedural expansion carries systemic costs. The article concludes that the future evolution of investor–State dispute settlement may depend on the development of differentiated procedural frameworks capable of calibrating procedural intensity to the scale and complexity of disputes while preserving meaningful access to international adjudication.
How procedural intensity in investment arbitration should be calibrated to the scale of disputes while preserving meaningful access to adjudication.
The article argues that procedural rules do not merely organise investment arbitration, but also shape the practical conditions under which access to adjudication becomes possible. Its contribution is to place the calibration of procedural intensity to the scale and complexity of the dispute at the centre of adjudicatory design.
Journal of International Arbitration · 2026
DOI 10.54648/joia2026027