The contribution of Caribbean ISDS jurisprudence to international investment law's ongoing legitimacy project

For over two decades, scholars of international law have staunchly challenged the (il)legitimacy of the international investment law regime. The central arguments advanced, in this connection, have been that there is a noticeable lack of determinacy with respect to investor protection standards, coupled with a perceptible lack of coherence in respect of the interpretation of these standards by arbitral tribunals, largely due to the absence of a de jure system of stare decisis in international law. To the extent that Caribbean voices have not been reflected in the ongoing discourse about the legitimacy of international investment law, this article argues that the rich jurisprudence emanating from investment arbitration cases involving Caribbean investors and states, respectively, has contributed, even if only marginally, to the coherence, predictability and consistency of international investment law, and thus the system’s perceived legitimacy. However, these cases are not a panacea as international investment law’s legitimacy deficits run deep.