Apparent dichotomies, covert similarities:A Response to joost pauwelyn

In his thoughtful article, Joost Pauwelyn poses a perplexing question: How can it be that trade and investment are converging in their substantive legal orders, but diverging in terms of perceived legitimacy? Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), he argues, is in a state of crisis whereas World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement is generally regarded as successful. Pauwelyn's provocative and counter-intuitive explanation for this paradox focuses on the apparent differences between the pool of decision-makers in each regime: WTO disputes are resolved by nameless, faceless, panel-inexperienced bureaucrats who often lack legal training, whereas investment arbitrators are typically high-powered, elite jurists with more expertise and experience than their WTO counterparts.