Understanding investment treaty arbitration

Please note that we also have subtopics on ICSID arbitration—overview and State immunity and arbitration—overview.

Investment treaty arbitration—an introduction

This Practice Note provides an introductory overview of investor—state arbitration and the key protections offered by bilateral and multilateral investment treaties (BITs and MITs) in respect of investments in foreign states. It sets out an explanation of the kinds of protections afforded to investors under those treaties and how investment disputes are resolved. It gives an outline of common issues in investment treaty arbitration, including who is an investor, what is an investment, jurisdiction, negotiations, interim measures, enforcement and state immunity. It provides an introduction to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and to other arbitral bodies which administer proceedings in investment treaty arbitrations.

See Practice Note: Investment treaty arbitration—an introduction.

The meaning of 'investor' and 'investment' in investment treaty arbitration

This Practice Note sets out the definitions of ‘investor’ and ‘investment’ for the purposes of investment treaty arbitration. It considers the complexities of these definitions including those in respect of holding companies, indirect ownership, nationalities and state ownership.

See Practice

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

French national courts uphold jurisdiction over conservatory or interim measures despite the existence of an arbitration agreement pursuant to Article 1449 of the French code of civil procedure (SCI L’Armorial v SAS MK Denain)

Arbitration analysis: In a ruling of 12 August 2025, the President of the first-degree Judicial Court of Valenciennes (the Court) upheld jurisdiction over an application for urgent interim measures, despite the existence of an arbitration clause in the lease agreement concluded between the parties. Referring to Article 1448 of the French code of civil procedure (FCCP), the Court recalled the negative effect of competence-competence, namely that French courts must generally decline jurisdiction in the presence of an arbitration agreement, unless (i) the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted and (ii) the arbitration agreement is manifestly invalid or inapplicable. The Court also recalled that pursuant to Article 1449 of the FCCP, parties may seek conservatory or interim measures from French domestic courts where (i) the arbitral tribunal has not been constituted and (ii) in case of emergency. In the present case, since the arbitration proceedings had not begun and SCI L’Armorial (the Claimant) had demonstrated that the interim measures sought were urgent, the Court upheld jurisdiction, even though the measures were eventually not ordered for reasons related to the merits. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner, Emma Ruby, associate, and Margot Van Dender, trainee, at Le 16 Law.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents