A recent academic article by Susan D. Franck, Professor of Law of Washington and Lee School of Law analysed the issue of whether or not ISDS could be said to favour host states from either the developed or the developing world. To this end, all ISDS awards that are publicly available as of 1 January 2012 were analysed.
At the outset, it is noted that ISDS is intended to provide investors with a real forum for non-politicized rule of law adjudication.
The main conclusion of the empirical research is that States’ relative success in ISDS appears to operate independently of development status. This, according to the author, suggests that other factors, such as the host state’s level of democracy and domestic political infrastructure may have more influence in the outcomes of ISDS.
Therefore, purely based on outcomes of the cases, available data does not show that ISDS favours host states from the developed world.
The article also carefully puts numbers into perspective. States won in equal or greater proportions than investors. Even when investors won in ISDS, the tendency is that they recovered less than USD 20 million in compensation on average. Overall, investors roughly obtained only 30% of the amount claimed.
Putting these numbers in mind, it should be difficult, if at all possible, to conclude that ISDS is either pro-investor, or pro-state. As in any well-functioning legal system, the reality of ISDS is more balanced than this and does not lend itself to simplified descriptions of who the system favours, or not.