There are several reasons why arbitration is often considered more advantageous than domestic courts in investor-state matters:

• Neutrality: Arbitration tribunals are typically composed of neutral third-party arbitrators, chosen by both the investor and the state. This can be seen as fairer than relying on the domestic court system of the host state, which might be perceived as biased in favor of the government.
• Expertise: Arbitrators can be chosen for their specific expertise in international investment law and relevant industry knowledge. This can lead to more informed decisions compared to domestic judges who may not have such specialized knowledge.
• Confidentiality: Arbitration proceedings are often confidential, which can be important for investors who want to protect commercially sensitive information. Domestic court proceedings are usually public.
• Efficiency and Speed: Arbitration can be faster and more efficient than litigation in domestic courts, which can be overburdened and slow-moving. This is especially important for investors who need disputes resolved quickly to minimize financial losses.
• Enforcement: Arbitration awards are generally easier to enforce internationally than domestic court judgments. This is because there are international treaties that facilitate the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards across different countries.
• Flexibility: The parties involved in an arbitration can agree on the specific rules and procedures that will be followed, allowing for a more tailored approach to resolving the dispute.

It’s important to note that arbitration also has some drawbacks. For example, arbitration awards are generally not subject to appeal, and the process can be expensive.

Overall, while domestic courts can be a viable option, arbitration is often seen as the preferred method for resolving investor-state disputes due to the advantages listed above.