The impetus for the IIDR Centre stems from a recognized need for greater efficiency and transparency in resolving disputes arising from international investment agreements. UNCITRAL, established in 1949, seeks to harmonize national laws on private international law, including investment treaty disputes. The establishment of a permanent, neutral body to oversee these disputes would alleviate the strain on national courts, reduce litigation costs, and foster greater investor confidence. The AC-OP meetings, culminating in the Paris gathering, serve as the critical stage for determining the location of this centre, a decision ultimately subject to a vote by the UNCITRAL Commission in June – July 2026.
Thailand’s motivation is multifaceted. Hosting the IIDR Centre would undeniably elevate Bangkok’s status as a regional and international hub, attracting related organizations and bolstering Thailand’s reputation as a forward-thinking nation. As Dr. Pongsak Wangananont, a specialist in international investment law at Chulalongkorn University, explains, “Thailand’s ambition is not simply about prestige; it’s a strategic move to leverage the IIDR Centre to attract FDI, enhance the competitiveness of Thai investment law, and project a positive image within ASEAN.” Data released by the Thai Board of Investment (BOI) indicates that FDI inflows into Thailand have steadily increased over the past decade, largely driven by investor confidence in the country’s legal framework and business environment. Securing the IIDR Centre could provide a significant boost to this trend.
However, the competition is intense. Eight other nations – Armenia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, France, Ghana, Morocco, and Thailand – have expressed interest. The selection process is likely to be influenced by factors beyond purely economic considerations. France, for example, possesses significant institutional and legal expertise within the UNCITRAL framework and enjoys strong diplomatic relationships within the organisation. Furthermore, the geopolitical implications are becoming increasingly relevant. The location decision could be viewed through the lens of broader strategic alliances and trade relationships. “The vote will be a proxy battle,” suggests Professor David Miller, a specialist in international relations at the University of Oxford. “Countries with strong ties to the UNCITRAL Secretariat or with significant trade relationships with key investor nations will undoubtedly wield considerable influence.”
The potential downsides for Thailand, beyond the possibility of losing the bid, are significant. A prolonged and contentious competition could expose vulnerabilities in Thailand’s legal system and potentially damage investor confidence – ironically undermining the very objective the centre seeks to achieve. The projected cost of establishing and operating the IIDR Centre – estimated to be between $50 million and $75 million – represents a substantial investment for Thailand. Moreover, the centre’s success hinges on the willingness of nations to submit disputes for resolution, a factor influenced by the perceived neutrality and effectiveness of the institution. Recent reports from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), while not directly related to the IIDR Centre, illustrate ongoing challenges in achieving timely and equitable resolutions to international investment disputes – a challenge the new centre is intended to address.
Looking ahead, if Thailand secures the bid, the immediate impact will be a concentrated effort to establish the infrastructure, recruit qualified personnel, and develop operational procedures. Within five to ten years, a successful IIDR Centre could solidify Thailand’s position as a key player in global investment governance, potentially leading to a significant increase in FDI flows and a strengthened Thai legal system. Conversely, failure to secure the bid would force Thailand to recalibrate its approach to attracting foreign investment and could highlight deficiencies in its broader economic strategy. The stakes are high, and the outcome of the June-July 2026 vote represents more than just a seat at the table; it’s a test of Thailand’s ability to engage effectively within the complex landscape of global investment law. The path forward demands strategic foresight and a sustained commitment to building an environment conducive to investor confidence.