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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

High Court of Delhi reiterates the limited scope of review under section 37(2)(b) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Union of India v Vedanta Ltd and another)

Arbitration analysis: In a decision given in July 2025, the High Court of Delhi (DHC) refused to interfere with an order passed by an arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) on the basis that the impugned order was well-reasoned and preserved the parties’ rights in an ongoing contract. In doing so, the DHC reiterated that an appellate court should exercise its powers under Section 37(2)(b) of the A&C Act sparingly and only when the order granting or refusing to grant interim relief under section 17 is ‘vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness or manifest illegality’. Accordingly, the DHC dismissed the appeal. Written by Juhi Gupta, counsel and Kevin Santhosh, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration weekly highlights—14 August 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England, Singapore, Hong Kong, Portugal, Brazil and the USA; and updates from UNCTAD, P.R.I.M.E. Finance and AIAC. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Jurisdictional immunity and Portuguese public policy arguments dismissed in recognition of arbitral award (Gold Reserve Inc v Venezuela)

Arbitration analysis: In a recent decision in a case between Gold Reserve Inc and Venezuela, the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) provided a clear stance on sovereign immunity and public policy. The court decided that sovereign immunity from jurisdiction is waived when a state consents to being sued. This decision was based on the unilateral offer to arbitrate under the Venezuela-Canada BIT, the New York Convention (‘NYC’), and the settlement agreement between the parties. The court did not address immunity from execution. Regarding public policy, the SCJ applied the exception under the NYC very narrowly. The court dismissed arguments that recognising the arbitration award would violate Portuguese legal principles, including environmental and local population protection, non-interference, proportionality, and abuse of rights. The SCJ found no evidence of any specific abuse of rights under Portuguese law and rejected the argument that recognition was sought to pierce the corporate veil and reach assets of other Venezuelan entities. Written by Ana Coimbra Trigo, senior associate at PLMJ Law Firm, Lisbon, and Francisco Salvado Bastos, trainee lawyer at PLMJ Law Firm, Lisbon.

Arbitration and insolvency in Brazil—set-off limits (MSERJ v CARTS)

Arbitration analysis: This case concerned a request for partial annulment of an arbitral award that had recognised the set-off of mutual claims under a civil works contract, based on a contractual clause, in a context where one of the parties had entered judicial reorganization proceedings in Brazil. The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) held that arbitral tribunals lack jurisdiction to determine the set-off of pre-petition claims. Even if set-off is contractually provided for and may have occurred before the filing, only the reorganisation court may validate it. While the decision directly limits the role of arbitration in such contexts, the STJ’s reasoning also applies to judicial proceedings outside the insolvency court. Any recognition of set-off involving pre-petition credits must be made within the reorganization forum. The ruling has important implications for parties dealing with financially distressed companies in Brazil, requiring a strategic reassessment of how mutual obligations are structured and how risks are managed in light of potential insolvency. Written by Christian Lopes, partner at VLF Advogados, and Maria Eduarda Boson, associate at VLF Advogados.