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

Switzerland - Revision of an arbitral award influenced by forgeries and fraud (A.________ v B.________, 4A_268/2025)

Arbitration analysis: In a judgment dated 22 October 2025 (4A_268/2025), the Swiss Federal Tribunal granted an application for revision of an international arbitral award rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2018/O/5735), holding that the award had been influenced, to the detriment of the player, by criminal offences committed by his former agent. The criminal courts had established that the agent had submitted forged contracts and a fabricated email in order to mislead the sole arbitrator and obtain payment of an undue commission. Relying on Article 190a(1)(b) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), the Federal Tribunal set aside the award and remitted the case to the CAS. The decision is exceptional in Swiss arbitration practice, where successful revisions of arbitral awards based on criminal conduct remain extremely rare. It underscores the decisive evidentiary role played by criminal proceedings—particularly where criminal authorities, unlike arbitral tribunals, can rely on coercive powers and international mutual legal assistance to uncover fraud. More broadly, the judgment confirms that Swiss law provides an effective mechanism to ensure that arbitration cannot be instrumentalized as a vehicle for criminal misconduct. Written by Pierre Ducret, CMS Switzerland, counsel to the player before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and in all related proceedings.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents