Understanding investment treaty arbitration

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

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.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

CJEU Advocate General rules EU Russia sanctions form part of Union public policy

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Advocate General Andrea Biondi has delivered an opinion in Case C-802/24 Reibel stating that the prohibition on satisfying claims by Russian entities under Council Regulation 833/2014 forms part of European Union public policy. The opinion, delivered on 26 February 2026, establishes that national courts must ensure arbitration awards comply with this prohibition and set aside awards that breach it, acting of their own motion if necessary. The case arose from a 2015 contract between a Belgian company and Russian entity where EU restrictive measures prevented performance, leading to a 2021 Swedish arbitration award ordering repayment of advance payments. Advocate General Biondi concluded that while arbitration proceedings concerning such claims may proceed, tribunals cannot provide favourable responses to Russian entity claims affected by restrictive measures. The opinion emphasises that arbitration tribunals remain bound by EU law and national courts must exercise effective judicial review to prevent circumvention of sanctions prohibitions.

CEPANI publishes 2025 statistical survey showing growth in international arbitration cases

The Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI) has published its 2025 statistical survey, reporting an increase in newly initiated arbitration proceedings and continued growth in international and high-value disputes. Overall, 38% of cases involved at least one international party, including 9% with only international parties (compared with none in 2024), while 53% involved exclusively Belgian parties. Proceedings were introduced in English (47%), Dutch (38%) and French (15%). Expedited cases involving claims below €100,000 accounted for 15% of the caseload, while 46% of disputes involved amounts exceeding €1m, up from 37% in 2024. Brussels was selected as the seat in 76% of cases, with 18% seated elsewhere in Belgium and 6% abroad, namely Luxembourg. CEPANI states that women represented 30% of appointed arbitrators (up from 23% in 2024), with 50% of Appointments Committee appointments going to women. In addition, 18% of appointed arbitrators were under 40, 83% of whom were appointed by the Committee.

Court of Appeal—serving a party not physically within the jurisdiction (Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance as to how practitioners should approach service where the party to be served is not only physically outside the jurisdiction, but has been made the subject of sanctions under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and is an 'excluded person' within section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971, with the consequence that they are not entitled to enter the UK. The court held that even where proceedings have been sent to a party’s last known address within the jurisdiction in compliance with Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which would normally result in valid service having been undertaken, service cannot have taken place by these means in the case of a party not entitled to enter the jurisdiction. The result was that the proceedings had not been validly served. In such cases service must be effected by alternative means or an order sought dispensing with service altogether. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

View Arbitration by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application