Founding Attorney
For companies operating abroad, bilateral investment treaties and arbitration work together as a single safety net. The treaty supplies the substantive rights. Arbitration supplies the forum in which those rights can actually be enforced against a sovereign. Neither is much use without the other. This article explains how the two combine to safeguard foreign investments, and what investors should do before relying on them.
Why Bilateral Investment Treaties Rely on Arbitration
A treaty promise means little if the only court available belongs to the state accused of breaking it. For that reason, treaty negotiators design bilateral investment treaties and arbitration clauses as a package. The treaty guarantees protections such as fair and equitable treatment and compensation for expropriation. The arbitration clause then lets the investor enforce those guarantees before an independent tribunal seated outside the host state’s judicial system. We cover the substantive protections in detail in our guide to the significance of a bilateral investment treaty in resolving international disputes.
The Standing Offer to Arbitrate
Arbitration normally requires a contract between the parties. Investment treaties solve this differently. The state’s consent sits in the treaty itself, as a standing offer to arbitrate with any covered investor. Consequently, the investor accepts that offer simply by filing a claim. The investor needs no direct contract with the host state, which is precisely what makes the mechanism such a powerful safeguard for investors who never negotiated with the government at all.
Initiating Arbitration Under Bilateral Investment Treaties
Notice and Cooling-Off
Most treaties require the investor to notify the state of the dispute and to negotiate for a fixed period, commonly several months, before filing. Skipping this step can expose the claim to jurisdictional objections. Therefore, the notice should be drafted with the eventual arbitration in mind.
Choosing the Rules
Treaties typically offer a menu of forums. The most common are arbitration under the ICSID Convention and ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. Each route has trade-offs in terms of enforcement, annulment, and procedural flexibility. For a comparison of institutional and non-institutional proceedings, see our explainer on ad hoc arbitration.
Constituting the Tribunal
The parties then appoint the tribunal, usually three arbitrators. Each side names one, and the parties or an appointing authority select the presiding arbitrator. Party appointment gives investors a meaningful voice in who decides their case. That feature distinguishes arbitration sharply from litigation in foreign courts.
Enforcement: Where the Safeguard Becomes Real
An award is only as good as its enforcement. Here the system delivers two strong routes. Every ICSID member state must recognize an ICSID award as if it were a final judgment of its own courts. Meanwhile, non-ICSID awards travel under the New York Convention, which more than 170 states have joined. As a result, a successful investor can pursue recognition in many jurisdictions where the losing state holds assets.
Enforcement against sovereigns still has limits. State assets used for governmental purposes are often immune from execution. Nevertheless, most states ultimately comply with awards, because persistent defiance carries reputational and financial costs.
What Investment Treaties and Arbitration Protect Against
Tribunals constituted under bilateral investment treaties hear claims about the full range of state conduct. Typical disputes involve direct or creeping expropriation, discriminatory regulation, revoked licenses, abusive tax measures, and denial of justice in local courts. Importantly, the safeguard reaches lawful-looking measures with unlawful effects. Even so, treaties do not insure against ordinary commercial failure, and tribunals respect a state’s genuine regulatory space.
Reform Debates Around Investment Treaties and Arbitration
The system is under scrutiny. Critics argue that investor-state arbitration lacks transparency and consistency, and reform discussions continue in UNCITRAL Working Group III. In Europe, the Court of Justice held in its 2018 Achmea judgment that intra-EU treaty arbitration is incompatible with EU law, and EU member states have since terminated their intra-EU treaties. Consequently, the map of available protection is changing. Investors should verify that a treaty remains in force, and on what terms, before counting on it.
Using Bilateral Investment Treaties and Arbitration Proactively
The safeguard works best when it is engineered in advance. Before committing capital, investors should take four steps:
- Map the treaties in force between potential home states and the host state.
- Structure the investment through an entity that qualifies for the strongest available treaty.
- Document the investment carefully, since proof of ownership and value drives recovery.
- Preserve evidence and observe treaty notice requirements the moment friction with the state begins.
Interim Relief While the Case Proceeds
Treaty cases move slowly, yet harm can escalate quickly. Tribunals therefore have power to order provisional measures. These can preserve assets, protect evidence, or restrain a state from aggravating the dispute, for instance by pursuing parallel criminal proceedings against the investor’s executives. States do not always comply. Still, tribunals may draw adverse conclusions from a party’s defiance, which gives the orders practical force.
Costs, Funding, and Damages
Investor-state arbitration is expensive, and costs must be weighed against the value of the claim from the outset. Third-party funding has changed that calculus. Funders now finance meritorious treaty claims in exchange for a share of the recovery, which opens the mechanism to investors who could not otherwise afford it. On the damages side, tribunals aim to wipe out the consequences of the breach. Valuation is often the hardest-fought issue in the case, so contemporaneous financial records and credible expert evidence matter enormously.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does treaty arbitration take?
Several years is typical from filing to award, and annulment or set-aside proceedings can add time. Early case assessment and disciplined procedural strategy help control the timeline.
Can a state counterclaim against the investor?
Sometimes. Depending on the treaty’s wording, states have raised counterclaims, for example concerning environmental damage. The risk is real, so investors should assess their own compliance record before filing.
Do bilateral investment treaties and arbitration clauses cover indirect shareholders?
Often they do. Many treaties protect indirect ownership through intermediate companies. However, coverage depends on the treaty’s definitions, which is why structuring advice matters before you invest.
How Transnational Matters Can Help
Bilateral investment treaties and arbitration are our core practice. We advise investors on treaty planning before deals close, and we prosecute investor-state claims when governments cross the line. To find out whether your investment is protected, visit our international arbitration practice page or contact our Miami office for a confidential consultation.
If an overseas investment of yours may be protected by a bilateral investment treaty, our team can help. Contact our team to assess the treaty protections available to you.
