Abstract

The Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) incorporates a number of stringent procedural requirements designed to balance the protection of foreign investors with the host State’s regulatory autonomy. The interpretation and application of these requirements have been illustrated in several notable arbitral proceedings, including CDPQ/CDP v. Mexico and Almaden/Almadex v. Mexico. This article analyzes the legal framework governing the procedural conditions for initiating ISDS claims under the CPTPP and examines how arbitral tribunals have assessed jurisdiction and admissibility in the aforementioned cases. Based on this analysis, the article draws lessons and offers recommendations for Vietnam in its engagement with ISDS mechanisms under contemporary investment agreements.

Keywords: CPTPP, ISDS, jurisdiction, locus standi, pre-arbitration requirements, sovereign immunity.