New players, same problems: <i>Michael Lee-Chin v Dominican Republic</i>, and the rising tide of inconsistency in South–South ISDS

Abstract This article provides a critical analysis of the Michael Lee-Chin v Dominican Republic arbitral award, highlighting its problematic reasoning and inconsistencies. Despite being a rare South–South investment dispute, the case demonstrates many of the same shortcomings criticized in North–South arbitrations. The tribunal’s expansive interpretation of investor protections, particularly regarding fair and equitable treatment and the umbrella clause, raises concerns about potential overreach. Most troublingly, the tribunal’s restrictive approach to the national security exception imposes a high threshold that may undermine states’ ability to respond to genuine environmental and public health crises. The award stands in stark contrast to the more balanced approach adopted in the recent Seda v Colombia case. By exposing these issues, the article argues that the problems plaguing investment arbitration are not merely a product of North–South power dynamics, but are deeply entrenched in how investment treaties are interpreted and applied. It calls for a fundamental reassessment of investment treaty interpretation that gives due weight to state regulatory space and public interest concerns, regardless of the geographical context of the dispute.