https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jcgibl <p>Journal of Corporate Governance and International Business Law is a peer reviewed Journal. In a broad sense, corporate governance is about how firms should be governed so that they run effectively and efficiently. This Journal takes a broad perspective on corporate governance mechanisms and considers possible synergies between corporate governance and international business (IB) research.</p> Consortium E- Learning Network Pvt. Limited en-US Journal of Corporate Governance and International Business Law 2584-1327 https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jcgibl/article/view/2041 <p>The COVID-19 pandemic exposed fundamental vulnerabilities in the global economic order and prompted a widespread reassessment of corporations’ roles and responsibilities in society. This article examines the evolving conceptual and legal framework of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the post-pandemic global economy. It argues that the pandemic has catalysed a paradigm shift from voluntary, philanthropic models of CSR toward more robust, legally mandated frameworks that hold corporations accountable for their social and environmental impacts. Drawing upon stakeholder theory, international soft law instruments, and comparative legal analysis, this paper evaluates the adequacy of existing CSR frameworks in addressing the systemic inequalities exacerbated by the pandemic. The analysis encompasses the European Union&amp;#39;s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, India&amp;#39;s mandatory CSR provisions under Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013, and emerging standards under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The article concludes that a post-pandemic CSR paradigm must integrate human rights due diligence, supply chain accountability, and stakeholder inclusivity to ensure that corporate conduct aligns with the imperatives of sustainable development and social justice.</p> Swarnima Gorani Bhupinder Singh Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Corporate Governance and International Business Law 2026-04-12 2026-04-12 9 2 https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jcgibl/article/view/2042 <p>This paper examines the evolving role of Indian courts in investor-state dispute settlement, tracing India’s shift from a pro-arbitration posture to strategic judicial intervention. It argues that the enforcement of BIT awards is impeded by doctrinal uncertainty over jurisdiction, admissibility and the commercial character of treaty claims, as well as by the expanding use<br>of anti-arbitration injunctions and the Group of Companies doctrine to curb forum competition and vertical multiplicity. The paper further identifies a persistent compensation schism between international standards of full reparation, including fair market value and discounted cash flow valuation and India’s restrictive domestic valuation and repatriation regime under FEMA, RBI guidelines and SEBI-related controls. These inconsistencies, compounded by India’s non-membership in the ICSID Convention and divergent judicial treatment of foreign awards, generate an enforceability deadlock that undermines investor confidence and treaty credibility. The paper uses doctrinal analysis supported by secondary empirical material and evaluates leading Indian and foreign decisions and argues for institutional recalibration. It concludes that India requires a standalone investment dispute framework, specialized judicial benches, harmonized valuation standards and regulatory exceptions for treaty-based awards to align domestic law with international best practices, to restore predictability, reduce delay and preserve the efficacy of investor protection commitments.</p> Somardh Agrawal Akankshi Asthana Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Corporate Governance and International Business Law 2026-04-12 2026-04-12 9 2