عنوان مقاله [English]
Arbitration has in recent times been considered as the most useful mechanism for settling international investment disputes. The significant increase in referring to arbitration, according to many commentators, must be sought in arbitration’s comparative advantages in terms of predictability and the trust of its international users. Conflicting decisions are among important setbacks to these advantages, and in particular, the issue of predictability in arbitration. Through an in-depth analysis of relevant arbitral precedent, this paper seeks to suggest a typology of conflicting decisions, and to explain potential solutions available for addressing its causes. It is concluded that, first, a degree of inconsistency is an integral part of any dispute settlement system, and therefore, it may not be fully eliminated from arbitration. Second, each type of conflict requires a unique solution, and accordingly, there is no single mechanism to address all types of conflicting decisions. Finally, inconsistency might not be eliminated unless a number of revisions are made to international treaties relevant to investment arbitration.