CNUDMI - A-CN.9-WG.III-WP.272 Summary of the tenth intersessional meeting on ISDS reform (Viet Nam)

United Nations A/CN.9/WG.III/WP. 272

General Assembly

Distr.: Limited 8 October 2026

Original: English

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor -State Dispute Settlement Reform) Fifty-sixth session Vienna, 1 1–15 January 2027

Summary of the tenth intersessional meeting on investor -State dispute settlement (ISDS) reform submitted by the Government of Viet Nam

This note reproduces a submission from the Government of Viet Nam containing the summary of the tenth intersessional meeting on investor -State dispute settlement ( ISDS ) reform held from 7 to 9 September 2026 in Ninh Binh , Viet Nam . The summary was submitted to the secretariat on 5 October 2026 in English and is reproduced as an annex to this note.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

2/17

Annex

Introduction

1. The tenth intersessional meeting of Working Group III on investor -State dispute settlement (ISDS) reform (the Meeting) was held from 7 to 9 September 2026 in Ninh Binh , Viet Nam . The Meeting focused on two topics: (i ) standing mechanisms for international investment disputes – the permanent tribunal (PT) and the permanent appellate tribunal (PAT) – on the basis of an informal document prepared for the Meeting ;1 and (ii) the assessment of damages and compensation, based on draft provision 20 (DP20) contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.267 , together with the draft Guidelines on the calculation of damages and compensation ( the Guidelines) contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.255 ; and a submission from the Governments of Viet Nam and Nigeria contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.261 .

with the draft Guidelines on the calculation of damages and compensation ( the Guidelines) contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.255 ; and a submission from the Governments of Viet Nam and Nigeria contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.261 .

2. The Meeting was organi zed in two parts: (i) the public session s, held in the format of expert panel discussions, which provided an opportunity for an in -depth examination of issues relating to the standing mechanisms and the assessment of damages and compensation; and (ii) the closed session s, held in the format of roundtable discussions , which built on the panel discussions. The roundtable discussions enabled participants to consider possible drafting approaches, assess areas of convergence and divergence and share views on matters that warranted further consideration by the Working Group. Where appropriate, participants considered whether the exchange s could support the presentation of a Chair’s proposal to the Working Group at its fifty -fifth session in October 2026 .2

3. The Meeting was jointly organi zed by the Ministry of Justice of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the UNCITRAL secretariat. It was held in a hybrid format, with participants attending both in person and online. There was a total of 237 participants, including 111 in -person and 126 online . There wer e representatives of 47 States, including delegates of Working Group III, as well as representatives of international organi zations, academia and the private sector. Simultaneous interpretation in English, French and Vietnamese was provided.

Session 1: Opening remarks

4. Mrs. Dang Hoang Oanh, Member of the Executive Bureau of the Communist Party of Viet Nam ( CPV) Committee, Deputy Minister of Justice of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam , welcomed the participants and reaffirmed Viet Nam’s support for the work of UNCITRAL.

5. Mr. Nguyen Anh Chuc, Member of the Executive Bureau of the CPV Committee of Ninh Binh province , Vice Chairman of the People’s Committee of

Republic of Viet Nam , welcomed the participants and reaffirmed Viet Nam’s support for the work of UNCITRAL.

5. Mr. Nguyen Anh Chuc, Member of the Executive Bureau of the CPV Committee of Ninh Binh province , Vice Chairman of the People’s Committee of Ninh Binh province, also welcomed participants to the Meeting and to Ninh Binh, reaffirming Viet Nam’s commitment to contributing to the work of UNCITRAL Working Group III and its intersessional process.

1 Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/default/files/2026 -08/informal_document__standing_mechanisms.pdf . The informal document contained in -progress drafts of the PT protocol and the PAT protocol for purposes of facilitating discussions at the Meeting. The drafts reflected initial changes made by the secretariat based on the report of the fifty -fourth session (Vienna, 23 -27 March 2026) of Working Group III ( A/CN.9/1240 ). It was noted that the drafts were in the course of being reviewed and revised and would be incorporated into forthcoming working papers for consideration at the fifty -sixth session of Working Group III (Vienna, 11 -15 January 2027). The summary uses the terms draft protocol or protocols and draft statute or statutes interchangeably , consistent with the use of those terms during the Meeting. 2 A revised text of DP20 was prepared by the Chair, the Rapporteur and the secretariat based on the discussions at the Meeting in order to facilitate the deliberations of the Working Group and is contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.268 .A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

3/17

6. Ms. Anna Joubin -Bret, Secretary of UNCITRAL , recalled the progress achieved by Working Group III, including the texts already adopted, and highlighted the usefulness of the Meeting for advancing discussions on two key topics : the standing mechanisms and th e assessment of damages and compensation.

6. Ms. Anna Joubin -Bret, Secretary of UNCITRAL , recalled the progress achieved by Working Group III, including the texts already adopted, and highlighted the usefulness of the Meeting for advancing discussions on two key topics : the standing mechanisms and th e assessment of damages and compensation.

7. Mr. Shane Spelliscy, Chair of UNCITRAL Working Group III, thanked the organi zers and emphasized the role of intersessional meetings in advancing the Working Group’s work. He also outlined the agenda and the key issues for discussion.

Session 2: Scope and jurisdiction of the standing mechanisms for the resolution of international investment disputes

8. The session was moderated by Ms. Natalie Morris -Sharma (Rapporteur of UNCITRAL Working Group III) and featured the following speakers: Ms. Doan Thanh Huyen ( Lecturer at the Hanoi Law University ), Mr. Zhao Sun (Director, Investment Law Division, Department of Treaty and Law, Ministry of Commerce, China) and Ms. Nora Bellec (Legal Officer, D irectorate -General for Trade and

Economic Security , European Commission ).

9. The panel discussed whether the jurisdiction of the PT should be limited to treaty -based disputes or extended to disputes arising under domestic legislation governing foreign investments and investment contracts under articles 14(1) -(3) of the draft PT statute , as reflected in the informal document (see para. 1 above) . It was said that States should retain control over the categories of disputes submitted to the standing mechanisms and that consent should not be presumed to extend to all potential claims. In that context, it was suggested that a flexible opt -in approac h could allow States to determine the categories of disputes in respect of which consent would be granted. It was further highlighted that gatekeeping mechanisms and preliminary review procedures could help ensure that only disputes meeting specified juris dictional requirements would proceed. The importance of respecting domestic legal processes and ensuring that investors did not circumvent applicable domestic legal requirements was also stressed.

10. Various views were expressed regarding the inclusion of disputes arising under

preliminary review procedures could help ensure that only disputes meeting specified juris dictional requirements would proceed. The importance of respecting domestic legal processes and ensuring that investors did not circumvent applicable domestic legal requirements was also stressed.

10. Various views were expressed regarding the inclusion of disputes arising under domestic legislation and investment contracts. It was said that treaty -based disputes were rooted in public international law, whereas disputes arising under legislation and inv estment contracts possessed a different legal character. Concerns were raised about treating treaty -based, legislation -based and contract -based disputes identically without adequate consideration of their distinct nature and the different legal frameworks that might govern them.

11. It was further said that the rationale for establishing the standing mechanisms related to treaty -based disputes and that the expertise required of adjudicators was primarily in public international law and international investment law. Concerns were expre ssed that extending jurisdiction to non -treaty -based disputes could raise questions regarding whether the adjudicators would possess the expertise necessary to address issues arising under domestic law and contractual arrangements.

12. At the same time, it was noted that disputes might arise on multiple legal bases and involve overlapping treaty, legislative and contractual elements. It was said that, where broader jurisdiction was to be contemplated, appropriate safeguards and jurisdict ional thresholds should be established. It was also noted that the PT might not always be the most appropriate forum for all non -treaty claims.

13. Questions were raised as to whether separate procedural rules for different categories of disputes could address the concerns. It was , however, noted that disputes involving treaty obligations, contractual obligations or other legal issues could continue to present difficulties despite the adoption of different procedural regimes.

14. The interaction s between the jurisdiction of the PT and that of the PAT were also discussed. It was said that, where disputes involved multiple legal bases,A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

4/17

consideration would need to be given to whether both standing mechanisms should be empowered to hear such disputes and how any related jurisdictional complexities should be addressed.

also discussed. It was said that, where disputes involved multiple legal bases,A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

4/17

consideration would need to be given to whether both standing mechanisms should be empowered to hear such disputes and how any related jurisdictional complexities should be addressed.

15. The panel further discussed whether article 14(4) of the draft PT statute should confer jurisdiction on the PT to hear State -to-State disputes (SSDs). It was highlighted that, if included, such disputes could be limited to requests for declaratory relief and treaty interpretation. It was also noted that excluding SSDs could leave a significant category of disputes outside the system. However, concerns were raised that allowing monetary claims through such proceedings could increase the risk of inter -State tensions. It was suggested that speciali zed chambers with tailored procedural rules could be established to hear such cases. At the same time, concerns were raised regarding how to avoid inconsistencies among decisions.

16. Regarding treaty interpretation -related SSDs in particular , it was suggested that procedural mechanisms could be established to facilitate the consistent interpretation of treaties. It was proposed that treaty -interpretation proceedings could give rise to an automatic stay of related proceedings and that joint interp retations could contribute to consistency and predictability.

17. With regard to plurilateral investment treaties and the references to relevant Party or Parties to the treaty in article 14 , it was discussed whether jurisdiction should depend on the consent of the Parties to the treaty that were directly concerned (i.e. the home State of the investor and the respondent State) or on the consent of all Parties to the treaty. It was noted that decisions rendered in such proceedings would not be binding on treaty Parties that had not given their consent. The possible role of non-disputing treaty Party submissions and joint interpre tations was also discussed as a means of addressing the interests of other treaty Parties.

18. Various views were expressed regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the PT. It was said that leaving it just as one of several possible options for dispute settlement

non-disputing treaty Party submissions and joint interpre tations was also discussed as a means of addressing the interests of other treaty Parties.

18. Various views were expressed regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the PT. It was said that leaving it just as one of several possible options for dispute settlement could undermine the effectiveness of the PT, as investors might continue to favour ad hoc arbitration. It was suggested that, where jurisdictional requirements were met and consent had been expressed to that effect, the PT should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. Other views emphasized the continued importance of preserving existing investor -State dispute settlement mechanisms as alternative options.

19. Practical methods for reflecting and determining consent were discussed. It was suggested that notification mechanisms could be used to identify where jurisdiction had been accepted and whether exclusive jurisdiction applied. It was noted that consent might be expressed through treaty pro visions, the notification mechanism envisaged under the draft multilateral instrument to implement the reforms (MIIR) or other instruments adopted by States.

20. Support was expressed for an opt -in approach to consent as envisaged in the draft informal document. 3 It was noted that such an approach would provide States with discretion and flexibility in determining whether and to what extent to participate in the standing mechanisms. It was further said that matching the consent of the respective States could be difficult to operationali ze, particularly in relation to legislation -based and contract -based disputes. Concerns were also raised regarding the practical difficulties associated with identifying and maintaining comprehensive lists of notifications and relevant instruments.

21. The panel further addressed issues relating to withdrawals from the protocols and the possible effects of withdrawal on pending proceedings. It was said that withdrawals should not affect pending cases. Questions were raised regarding proceedings that migh t be at different stages before the PT and PAT, including situations where first -tier proceedings remained pending while appellate review might potentially no longer be available following withdrawal, and whether additional guidance would be required to ad dress such situations.

3 See footnote 20 and 58 of the informal document linked in footnote 1 above .A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

might potentially no longer be available following withdrawal, and whether additional guidance would be required to ad dress such situations.

3 See footnote 20 and 58 of the informal document linked in footnote 1 above .A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

5/17

Session 3: Structure of the standing mechanisms for the resolution of international investment disputes and cooperation between the permanent tribunal and the permanent appellate tribunal

22. The session was moderated by Ms. Anna Joubin -Bret ( Secretary of UNCITRAL ) and featured the following speakers: Mr. Martin Doe (Deputy Secretary -Genera l, Permanent Court of Arbitration), Ms. Laura Janssen ( former Senior Policy Officer , Trade and Investments , Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) and Assoc. Prof. Dr . Nguyen Thi Lan Anh (Judge -elect of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and Deputy Director of the Diplomatic Academy of Viet Nam ).

23. The discussion focused on possible forms of cooperation between the proposed PT and the PAT and built on previous discussions concerning the development of separate statutes for the two institutions and the need to ensure an appropriate level of coordinati on between them while preserving their independence. 4

24. It was noted that experiences from existing international adjudicatory institutions could provide useful guidance in designing the proposed governance structure. Reference was made to the experience of host States and international institutions in supporti ng international dispute settlement through political commitment, infrastructure and administrative services.

25. It was noted that The Hague had developed into a global centre for international peace, justice and the rule of law over more than a century and currently hosted various international organizations, including several international adjudicatory bodies . It was said that the successful functioning of such bodies depended not only on legal frameworks but also on the existence of adequate legal infrastructure, support from the host Government, as well as other services. It was further noted that, notwithstanding the development of separate statutes, the PT a nd the PAT should be viewed as components of a coherent mechanism designed to address

on legal frameworks but also on the existence of adequate legal infrastructure, support from the host Government, as well as other services. It was further noted that, notwithstanding the development of separate statutes, the PT a nd the PAT should be viewed as components of a coherent mechanism designed to address concerns regarding the current ISDS system.

26. The desirability of aligning the articles of the two statutes to the greatest extent possible was emphasized. It was suggested that consistency in drafting could facilitate cooperation between the institutions and contribute to administrative efficiency. I t was further noted that efforts should focus on achieving consistency where necessary while avoiding undue complexity.

27. Various forms of administrative cooperation were discussed. It was noted that the institutions could coordinate in the development of staff regulations, administrative and procedural rules, ethical frameworks and financial regulations.

The possibility of sharing personnel and establishing a common registry serving both institutions was also mentioned as a means of promoting efficiency and reducing costs. Questions were rais ed regarding which functions could appropriately be shared and which should remain distinct in order to preserve institutional independence.

28. Different views were expressed regarding governance arrangements. The possibility of joint meetings of the Conferences of the Parties was discussed. It was pointed out that membership in the two institutions might not be identical. It was noted that certai n functions could potentially be carried out jointly in the interest of consistency, including screening processes and administrative matters, while other functions might need to remain separate. The possibility of cooperation in financing and budgeting wa s also discussed, particularly in light of uncertainties regarding future caseloads and corresponding budgetary requirements.

29. Reference was made to institutional funding models used by existing international organizations. It was noted that fixed operational costs could be covered through assessed contributions, including in circumstances where no cases were brought before the in stitutions, while additional revenues could be generated

4 See A/CN.9/1238 , para s. 112 -113.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

6/17

covered through assessed contributions, including in circumstances where no cases were brought before the in stitutions, while additional revenues could be generated

4 See A/CN.9/1238 , para s. 112 -113.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

6/17

through user fees. It was suggested that flexible budgeting arrangements could assist in addressing uncertainties related to caseload s. It was further noted that, during their initial years of operation, the standing mechanisms could potentially benefit from sharing infrastructure, administrative services and institutional expertise with existing organizations.

30. Information was provided regarding the structure and operation of existing international tribunals. Reference was made to the operation of tribunals established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it was noted that judicial membe rs could play an active role in supporting the administration of an institution through commissions and other internal bodies.

31. The discussion further focused on article 6 of the draft statutes and the role of the registr ies. It was noted that a common registry headed by a single registrar appointed through a joint meeting of the Conferences of the Parties could provide a unified institutional interface and help ensure administrative consistency. The benefits of having a single visible institutional point of contact were emphasized. At the same time, questions were raised concerning the appropriate scope of the registrar’s responsibilities and whether a single registrar should exercise a broader oversight role across both institutions. Concerns were also expressed regarding the pract ical ability of one registrar to oversee proceedings before both institutions.

Reference was made to existing models under which registrars were elected by members of a tribunal and worked closely with them in the administration of the institution. It was noted that such approaches differed from models in which the registrar was appointed directly by State Parties.

32. The possibility of locating both institutions in the same city or building was discussed. It was noted that co -location could generate efficiencies, facilitate cooperation and contribute to the development of a common institutional culture while preserving the separate legal identity of each institution. Such efficiencies

registrar was appointed directly by State Parties.

32. The possibility of locating both institutions in the same city or building was discussed. It was noted that co -location could generate efficiencies, facilitate cooperation and contribute to the development of a common institutional culture while preserving the separate legal identity of each institution. Such efficiencies could include a shared building and shared services ( such as human resources , information technology and security services , as well as legal research resources ).

Support was expressed for locating the institutions together, if feasible. It was questioned how much the building and services would cost , in order to be able to assess what efficiencies and synergies there could be in practice. However, concerns were raised regarding the need to preserve both actual and perceived institutional independence. It was said that excessive operational integration could create concerns regarding the separation between first -instance and appellate functions, including perceptions arising from the close interaction of judges and staff within shared facilities.

33. Support was expressed for the possible establishment of a single screening committee serving both institutions. It was noted that such an arrangement could promote consistency in screening processes and reduce administrative burdens.

34. It was suggested that language should be included on cooperation and coordination between the two institutions in article 2 of the draft statutes, which addressed general principles . Throughout the discussion, emphasis was placed on achieving an appropriate balance between financial optimization, operational efficiency and institutional independence. It was noted that cooperation mechanisms should be designed in a manner that support s operational effectiveness without compromising the autonomy of either institution.

35. The discussion also addressed issues relating to entry into force. It was noted that the statutes establishing the PT and the PAT could enter into force at different times. As a result, the resp ective Conferences of the Parties might not exist simultaneously, which could affect the feasibility of certain joint arrangements during an initial transitional period. It was observed that such timing differences could require governance arrangements cap able of functioning independently until both institutions become operational . It was also said that implementation arrangements should preserve flexibility and avoid assuming simultaneous entry into

simultaneously, which could affect the feasibility of certain joint arrangements during an initial transitional period. It was observed that such timing differences could require governance arrangements cap able of functioning independently until both institutions become operational . It was also said that implementation arrangements should preserve flexibility and avoid assuming simultaneous entry into force.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

7/17

Session 4: Recognition and enforcement of decisions of the permanent appellate tribunal for the resolution of international investment disputes

36. The session was moderated by Mr. Jae Sung Lee (Principal Legal Officer, UNCITRAL secretariat) and included the following speakers: Dr. Margie -Lys Jaime Ramirez (Head of the Investment Arbitration Office , Ministry of Economy and Finance of Panama), Mr. Chin Heng Ong ( Deputy Director -General and Senior State Counsel, Attorney -General’s Chambers, Singapore) , Ms. Aurelia Antonietti (Chief Counsel, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ) and

Ms. Alicia Martin Blanco (Senior Legal Counsel, ICSID).

37. It was noted that questions relating to the recognition and enforcement of PAT decisions were closely linked to broader policy issues currently under consideration, including the scope of jurisdiction of the PAT, the means of expressing consent to its juri sdiction, the relationship between appellate proceedings and other post -award remedies, the possible appeal of awards rendered pursuant to the ICSID Convention, and the consequences of recognition and enforcement in Contracting and nonContracting Parties to the PAT statute. It was also recalled that article 28 of the draft PAT statute sought to establish a self -contained recognition and enforcement mechanism.

38. The different outcomes of an appeal, including decisions upholding, modifying or reversing a first -tier award or decision, and the implications of each outcome for recognition and enforcement, were discussed. Questions were raised as to whether enforcement should relate to the PAT decision itself, the underlying award or decision as upheld or modified, or a PAT decision incorporating that award or

or reversing a first -tier award or decision, and the implications of each outcome for recognition and enforcement, were discussed. Questions were raised as to whether enforcement should relate to the PAT decision itself, the underlying award or decision as upheld or modified, or a PAT decision incorporating that award or decision . It was noted that the articles in the draft PAT statute appeared to proceed on the basis that the relevant award or decision would be treated as having been rendered by the PAT for purposes of recognition and enforcement . The importance of the final and binding character of the underlying award or decision once upheld or modified was also emphasized . It was generally noted that the drafting in the statute would have to be refined and clarified in this regard.

39. It was further noted that the framework should avoid parallel enforcement proceedings with respect to a first -tier award and a PAT decision , respectively.

Concerns were raised regarding the potential for overlapping enforcement proceedings and the need to clarify the relationship between the PAT enforcement mechanism and other applicable enforcement regimes. Questions were also raised regardin g decisions reversing and remanding a dispute or resubmitting it to a newly constituted tribunal. It was generally noted that such decisions might not themselves require recognition and enforcement and that awards rendered following remand or re-submission could remain subject to their otherwise applicable enforcement regimes.

40. With regard to awards rendered pursuant to the ICSID Convention, the discussion addressed the possible implications of a future inter se modification of the Convention to allow appeals before the PAT. It was noted that such a modification could be implemen ted through different approaches, including comprehensive and selective models, each presenting different advantages and disadvantages.

Discussion s focused on the enforcement regime under article 54 of the ICSID Convention, which required recognition and enforcement of an award as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. It was noted that preserving the benefits of that regime could be d esirable, particularly where an ICSID award had been upheld on appeal.

41. Different approaches to accommodating appellate review , while maintaining

Convention, which required recognition and enforcement of an award as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. It was noted that preserving the benefits of that regime could be d esirable, particularly where an ICSID award had been upheld on appeal.

41. Different approaches to accommodating appellate review , while maintaining access to existing enforcement mechanisms , were discussed. It was suggested that different consequences could follow depending on the type of decision rendered on appeal , with different recognition and enforcement approaches potentially being appropriate in each circumstance. It was noted that awards rendered under a modified ICSID Convention might be enforceable only in States also participating in thatA/CN.9/WG.III/WP.272

8/17

modification. The implications of such an outcome for the effectiveness and attractiveness of the appellate mechanism were discussed.

42. The discussion further focused on article 28(4), which provided that a PAT decision should be considered an arbitral award for the purposes of recognition an