Founding Attorney
No standard is invoked more often in investment arbitration than fair and equitable treatment. Nearly every treaty promises it, most claims plead it, and a large share of state liability rests on it. Yet the standard is not absolute. This article unpacks the FET exceptions: the limits that tribunals and treaty drafters have built to protect a state’s right to regulate. Understanding both halves — the protection and its boundaries — is essential for anyone structuring or defending a cross-border investment.
What Is Fair and Equitable Treatment?
The phrase appears in thousands of treaties, but it comes in two flavours. Some treaties link it to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law, a deliberately high threshold with roots in early twentieth-century cases. NAFTA Article 1105 took this approach, and the tribunal in Waste Management v. Mexico famously described the conduct required: treatment that is arbitrary, grossly unfair, unjust, or lacking in due process. The case reports of ICSID are full of claims testing that line. Other treaties contain an autonomous clause with no reference to custom. Consequently, tribunals interpreting those clauses, such as the one in Tecmed v. Mexico, have read the standard more expansively.
The drafting difference matters in practice. Under a custom-linked clause, an investor must show serious misconduct. Under an autonomous clause, disappointing an investor’s reasonable expectations may be enough. Therefore, the first question in any case is simply: which version did the states sign? The answer also shapes which FET exceptions the state can invoke. For background on how these claims are brought, see our overview of what ISDS is.
The Core Elements Tribunals Protect
Despite the varied wording, the case law converges on a familiar cluster of protections:
- Legitimate expectations. Specific assurances or a stable legal framework that induced the investment cannot simply be abandoned. This is the heart of most claims.
- Due process. Denial of justice in the courts, or administrative decisions taken without notice and hearing, breach the standard.
- Freedom from arbitrariness and discrimination. Measures with no rational basis, or aimed at a foreign investor because it is foreign, are classic violations.
- Transparency and consistency. In Metalclad v. Mexico, contradictory signals from different levels of government contributed to liability.
However, tribunals repeatedly stress that fair and equitable treatment is not an insurance policy against bad business judgment. An investor who misreads the market, or who invested without diligence, cannot convert ordinary regulatory life into a treaty claim. That principle is the first of the FET exceptions in all but name.
The FET Exceptions: Where Protection Ends
The Right to Regulate and the Police Powers Doctrine
States do not freeze their legal systems when they sign a treaty. Tribunals recognize that bona fide, non-discriminatory regulation in the public interest ordinarily does not breach the standard, even when it hurts an investment. The tribunal in Saluka v. Czech Republic put the point plainly: the investor’s expectations must be weighed against the state’s legitimate right to regulate in the public interest. Later, in Philip Morris v. Uruguay, the tribunal upheld tobacco-control measures and allowed the state a margin of appreciation in matters of public health. Both cases show FET exceptions operating at full strength.
Necessity and Economic Emergency
Argentina’s financial crisis at the turn of the century generated a wave of claims and, with them, a body of law on emergency defences. States invoked both the customary defence of necessity and treaty-based “non-precluded measures” clauses, which exempt measures necessary for public order or essential security. The results diverged: some tribunals accepted the defence for the peak of the crisis, while others rejected it. Nevertheless, the message for drafters was clear, and these defences now operate as true FET exceptions written into modern treaties.
Treaty Carve-Outs: FET Exceptions by Design
The newest generation of treaties narrows the standard at the source. CETA, for example, defines fair and equitable treatment through a closed list of breaches, including denial of justice, fundamental breach of due process, manifest arbitrariness, and targeted discrimination. In addition, many recent agreements state expressly that a breach of the investor’s expectations, without more, does not violate the standard, and they import general exceptions for health, environment, and security. For investors, the era of open-ended FET clauses is gradually closing.
How Tribunals Weigh FET Claims
Because the standard is flexible, outcomes turn on a weighing exercise rather than a bright-line rule. Several factors recur. The specificity of the state’s assurances matters most: a signed stability commitment weighs far more than a minister’s optimistic speech. Timing matters too, since expectations are assessed as of the date of the investment, not with hindsight. Tribunals also examine the measure’s purpose and proportionality. A targeted revocation of one foreign investor’s licence looks very different from an economy-wide tax reform, even if both cause identical losses.
It is also worth separating this standard from expropriation. Indirect expropriation requires a substantial deprivation of the investment’s value, a demanding test that many claims fail. By contrast, fair and equitable treatment can be breached by conduct that damages an investment without destroying it. For that reason, FET has become the workhorse of investment claims, and the exceptions described above have become the states’ primary line of defence.
What the FET Exceptions Mean for Investors
The practical playbook follows from the FET exceptions described above. First, obtain specific commitments in writing: tribunals protect concrete assurances far more readily than general hopes of regulatory stability. The Occidental v. Ecuador saga shows how much can turn on the state’s own representations and conduct. Second, document the regulatory landscape at the time of investment, because legitimate expectations are measured at that moment. Third, check which treaty version protects your structure; a custom-linked clause changes the odds. Finally, behave well: an investor’s own misconduct or lack of diligence consistently weakens fair and equitable treatment claims.
Speak with Investment Treaty Counsel
In short, fair and equitable treatment remains the most powerful investor protection in the treaty system, but the FET exceptions now do real work. Whether a measure crosses the line depends on treaty text, timing, and evidence. Transnational Matters advises investors on treaty planning and pursues claims as international investment counsel. If state action has harmed your investment, contact our office for an assessment of your options.
Fair and equitable treatment has limits, and those limits shape how investment claims are framed. Contact our team to explore how FET standards bear on your investment.
