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

Arbitration weekly highlights—9 October 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England & Wales, Scotland, France, Hong Kong, Israel and the US, updates from CAM, PCA, ICSID, QMUL China and Qatar, and analysis of the regulatory landscape for cryptoassets in global finance. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

AIAC launches 2026 Suite of Rules during Asia ADR Week

The Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) has launched its 2026 Suite of Rules during Asia ADR Week 2025, with the new rules coming into force on 1 January 2026. The launch coincides with the enforcement of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 and the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication (Amendment) Act 2024. The 2026 Suite introduces an integrated framework covering arbitration, mediation, adjudication, Islamic arbitration, sports arbitration and domain name dispute resolution. Central to the reform is the establishment of the AIAC Court of Arbitration, designed to reinforce institutional independence and set new regional benchmarks for best practice.

Israeli ruling shows a non-EU ICSID enforcement approach

Law360, Expert analysis: The 25 August 2025 decision of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, handed down by retired Judge Yehudit Shevah in Sun-Flower Olmeda GMBH & Co KG v The Kingdom of Spain, presents an unusual and instructive moment at the confluence of investment arbitration and regional public law. Josep Galvez, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, explores how the Israeli court’s cautious approach balances its obligations under the ICSID Convention with sensitivity to the broader international uncertainty surrounding intra-EU investment arbitration.

Arbitration Appeal No 2 of 2024–Serious irregularity Appeal under rule 68 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules

Arbitration analysis: Arbitration Appeal No.2 of 2024 concerned a farming partnership dispute and an appeal to the Outer House of the Court of Session challenging the decision of an arbitrator dated 14 June 2024 on the basis that there was a serious irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration under Rule 68 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules (as contained in Schedule 1 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010). The Outer House (Lord Sandison) dismissed the petition and confirmed the arbitrator’s award under Rule 68(3)(a) of the Scottish Arbitration Rules. In dismissing the petition, the Outer House reiterated the high hurdle to be overcome for a serious irregularity appeal against an arbitral award to succeed before the Scottish courts. The court also provided useful guidance on the role of pleadings and what issues should be considered as intrinsic to such disputes put before an arbitrator. The court also demonstrated a willingness to draw upon English authorities in its consideration of the construction and operation of Rule 68 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules. Written by Chris Stephen, advocate (Scotland) at Ampersand Advocates and barrister (England & Wales) at Three Stone Chambers.