Abstract Due diligence has long been understood as both a duty and a constraint upon State behaviour. Can it perform the same role in relation to investor conduct? The principal aim of this article is to provide a novel and systematic analysis of investor due diligence in international investment law. It problematizes the emerging approaches to investor due diligence by situating it at the heart of the competing visions on how international investment law articulates fairness through the standards of appropriate behaviour for States and investors, respectively. The article interrogates how arbitral approaches to due diligence expose international investment law’s enduring asymmetries, deficits, and resistance to change, especially when it comes to incentivizing and enforcing responsible and accountable investor conduct.

Abstract The proliferation of digital assets, particularly cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based tokens, has generated unprecedented legal and regulatory challenges. A growing body of legal and practical inquiries is seeking to understand how the framework of international investment law – traditionally designed for centralized financial landscapes – applies to these novel instruments that are inherently decentralized, intangible, and volatile. Through a multi-faceted structure, this article seeks to shed light on this dynamic and complex intersection in contemporary investment law. The pressing issue lies in determining how established legal frameworks can accommodate and adapt to the evolving crypto economy. Central to this discourse is the question of whether digital assets can qualify as “investments” under bilateral and multilateral treaties. This categorization carries significant implications for the jurisdictional reach of arbitral tribunals in disputes involving such assets, the extent of investor protections, and the ability of states to regulate without incurring liability. The ongoing evolution of international investment law requires a thorough reassessment of foundational concepts such as the definition of investment, the principle of territoriality, and the calculation of damages in light of these emerging digital realities. While no publicly reported investment treaty arbitration awards have yet addressed crypto-related investments under bilateral or multilateral investment treaties, the rapid expansion of crypto-related enterprises and the growing number of regulatory interventions affecting crypto-assets make such disputes increasingly likely.

Abstract With increased attention to digital assets’ relevance to international investment law, data as the fundamental asset of the digital economy requires an in-depth exploration. This article shows that the most adequate approach is to disaggregate the notion of data instead of generalising or dichotomic conclusions about whether data falls within or outside the scope of protected investments. To do so, it shows the need to differentiate beyond binary distinctions such as personal/non-personal or raw/processed data. Such disaggregation and differentiation lead to two discussions. First, the relationship between data as an investor’s asset and its commodification as property under domestic law can exceptionally entail a fundamental challenge for, notably, personal data’s status as investor property. Second, the type of data, its articulation with connected notions such as information, knowledge and wisdom, and the establishment of a territorial link, all raise crucial questions for the assessment of whether data is an asset protected as an investment. The conclusion is that it might be less necessary to adapt international investment law to more clearly include data and other digital assets as suggested by calls for such adaptation, whose implications might also be questionable.

This research examines the dynamics of the relationship between the enforcement of Human Rights (HR) and the role of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as the principal international arbitration institution in investment disputes. The background of this study is grounded in the tension between the protection of foreign investors—primarily through bilateral investment treaties—and the obligations of host states to safeguard public interests and the human rights of their citizens, which are often overlooked in conventional investment arbitration awards. The research raises two main questions: first, how human rights are positioned within ICSID jurisprudence; and second, how ASEAN countries integrate human rights clauses into their international investment agreements in order to balance economic and social interests. The research employs a normative juridical method, utilizing a conceptual approach, a statutory approach, and a comparative approach across several ASEAN member states. Secondary data in the form of ICSID arbitral awards and international investment agreements are analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that although ICSID has traditionally been investor–state centric, there is a discernible shift in which human rights issues are increasingly considered through state counter-claims. From a comparative perspective, several ASEAN countries have begun updating their model bilateral investment treaties to allow greater regulatory space for public policies related to human rights. In conclusion, harmonization between the international investment law regime and human rights law is crucial to prevent fragmentation in international law. This study recommends procedural reforms within the ICSID framework to accommodate third-party participation (amicus curiae) and the standardization of human rights clauses in investment treaties at the ASEAN regional level in order to strengthen the bargaining position of member states.

The purpose of the paper is to question the challenges of arbitration as a method for settlement of foreign direct investment disputes and to provide answers to several important questions, such as: defining the challenges of the concept as an alternative to domestic courts decisions, determining its outline, explaining the basic advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, analyzing the arbitration systems and their features, the enforcement mechanisms, the way to reform the investor-state dispute settlement, arbitration institutions in the Western Balkan and the challenges of investment arbitration in North Macedonia. It discusses the legal remedies available to foreign investors if state conduct breaches those standards. The default rule usually is that the investor must bring the case to national courts in the host state. However, many states have allowed investors to bring disputes to international arbitration instead of (or in addition to) national courts, as part of strategies to promote foreign investment. In the paper is discussed the concept of arbitration as a procedure whereby both sides to a dispute agree to let a designated third party, the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal, decide the outcome of a legal dispute. Arbitration serves a purpose of advancing the collaboration of the disputing parties, with an ultimate objective of effective and efficient settlement of legal issues. It explores dispute settlement in international investment law, evaluating the criticisms that it is undemocratic and non-transparent and at the same time seen as a major advantage to foreign firms because it ensures fairness and confidentiality. Use of investor-state arbitration has increased sharply since the late 1990s. By the end of 2014, there were over 600 known cases of international arbitration under investment treaties; while up to the year 2000, this number was below 50. Choosing arbitrators, as well as the desired characteristics of an arbitrator is an important step in any international arbitration. It will be reviewed the claim that the common practice in international arbitration is that disputes are decided by a three-arbitrator panel. The advantages of arbitration over conventional litigation are numerous and cover issues such as: highly-qualified arbitrators, better ratio cost and result, less adversarial system and confidentiality of the procedure. In general, it could be made difference between 2 arbitration systems: ad-hoc and institutional which is furtherly explained in this paper. One important difference of the available arbitration systems is in regards to the enforcement mechanism. For that purpose are being compared the enforcement mechanisms under the ICSID and under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Moreover, the reforming initiatives for investor-state dispute settlement are being presented. Next, arbitration institutions in the Western Balkan are being previewed. Finally, the challenges of investment arbitration in North Macedonia are being presented.

The existing global investment regulatory framework consists of human rights responsibility areas requiring essential progress for implementation of enforcement as well as judicial systems. Judicial along with state practices relating to human rights factors come under analysis through legal studies about human rights access in international investment law when investment treaty provisions undergo interpretation in investor dispute resolution systems. The study evaluates human rights standards which concern health rights and property rights and labour rights and environmental rights by analysing legal academic research and international treaty provisions regarding their implementation within investment arbitrations. States retain their fundamental human rights responsibilities toward investors despite the current investor protections related to fairness and expropriation which still apply. The recognition of human rights protection in the investment law remains incompatible due to the provisions found in international treaties, which interconnect with international human rights standards in tribunal decisions. The paper introduces synthetic recommendations to establish legal ties between public interest areas through enhanced treaty wording and extended assessment techniques for non-investor groups during dispute resolution system reforms to safeguard investment protection dignity. By applying these methods both social justice principles and human dignity standards gain thorough protection.

Abstract Contemporary investment law is marked by deep fragmentation: a network of thousands of treaties that are not always primarily focused on governing international investment relations, overlapping treatment and protection standards, as well as only partially crystallised customary rules shaped by arbitral practice. Currently this fragmentation is increasingly exacerbated by growing global geopolitical competition and international conflicts, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, thereby intensifying the tension between state security imperatives and the evolutionarily established system of foreign investor protection. The article introduces the concept of the investment standards construct – a holistic methodological model for the systemic analysis of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and for the design of their modernised content. The proposed legal engineering approach moves beyond conventional element-by-element examination of investment treatment and protection standards (such as fair and equitable treatment, national treatment, prohibition of expropriation, etc.) and instead considers them in their dynamic interplay with procedural and other guarantees as well as legal limitations, including right to regulate and security exceptions. The new model’s applicability is demonstrated through doctrinal analysis and arbitral practice, including the current Ukrainian case cluster and other significant disputes. The study shows how the construct functions as an operational tool for both assessing disputes in contexts of economic development and conflict, as well as for designing more resilient and balanced IIAs capable of aligning investor protection with contemporary regulatory needs.

The article overviews the innovative teaching methods used at the Institute for European Studies of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, as well as the targeted skills and learning outcomes, while teaching the European Union law and other related disciplines by the author (International Investment Law and European Union; Correlation of Public International Law and European Union Law; International Dispute Settlement in the European Union, and etc.). It is argued that the contemporary educational system shall not limit itself with traditional teaching approaches and it shall give due regard to the realities of the 21st century in order to equip its graduates with the necessary skills and knowledge. On the other hand, article also maintains that many contemporary teaching methods have in its cores the centuries-old traditions, by making references to the legacies of the greatest educators of all time. Author further reflects on her personal experiences and challenges in teaching the European Union law in Georgia, considering that Georgia is not a member state of the European Union yet. In this regard, the author shares her thoughts on finding balance between teaching the European Union law based on the classic legal textbooks and teaching it in the way, which would be useful for Georgian students to benefit from the acquired knowledge and skills in their future careers.

Purpose This study is to examine how developing countries can effectively implement a human rights due diligence (HRDD) framework that meets international investment law obligations while addressing domestic socio-economic realities. This study investigates the evolution of HRDD from a soft legal framework to explicit legal obligations in investment treaties and national laws, focusing on the ASEAN experience. This paper aims to understand the determinants of success or failure of different HRDD implementation approaches and to provide evidence-based recommendations for developing countries, particularly Vietnam, facing similar challenges in balancing investment protection with human rights considerations. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a qualitative comparative approach combining doctrinal legal analysis with empirical case studies. This study examines international investment treaties, national legislation and investment dispute settlements from 2011 to 2024. Four ASEAN countries (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) were selected based on their different HRDD implementation approaches, stages of development and global value chain integration strategies. This study uses a multi-level governance framework that analyzes international legal obligations, domestic policy frameworks and corporate implementation practices. Findings HRDD has evolved from a voluntary corporate social responsibility obligation to a mandatory legal requirement in investment treaties and national legislation. ASEAN countries demonstrate diverse implementation strategies: Singapore integrates HRDD into an ESG framework; Thailand develops a comprehensive National Action Plan; Malaysia focuses on a sector-specific approach (palm oil); and Indonesia uses state-owned enterprises as an implementation model. Investment dispute resolution increasingly recognizes the need for HRDD, reflecting a shift toward balancing investor protection with human rights. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on the ASEAN region, which may limit generalizability to other developing regions with different institutional contexts. The time horizon (2011–2024) captures recent developments but may not reflect long-term implementation outcomes. The limited availability of comprehensive data on corporate HRDD practices, particularly from SMEs, limits the depth of analysis. This study mainly looks at the formal legal framework rather than the effectiveness of implementation on the ground. Practical implications This study provides actionable guidance for developing countries implementing the HRDD framework. Key recommendations include developing a step-by-step legal framework rather than a comprehensive system at once, integrating HRDD into existing regulatory mechanisms, leveraging financial regulators and stock exchanges, developing sector-specific approaches for high-risk sectors, collaborating with industry associations, using state-owned enterprises as implementation models and establishing multi-stakeholder monitoring systems. Social implications Integrating HRDD into international investment law represents a fundamental shift toward protecting vulnerable communities affected by business activities. Effective implementation can prevent human rights abuses, improve labor conditions, protect indigenous community rights and ensure environmental protection. Research demonstrates that market-based approaches can complement regulatory frameworks, potentially creating positive change even in contexts of weak domestic enforcement. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study provides the first systematic comparative analysis of HRDD implementation across multiple ASEAN countries within the framework of international investment law. This study develops an innovative theoretical framework that connects domestic HRDD implementation with international investment obligations, filling a significant gap in existing scholarship. This study offers new insights into how developing countries can adapt international standards to local contexts while maintaining compliance with global standards. The evidence-based recommendations are particularly valuable for Vietnam and other developing countries.

Advancing indigenous peoples’ sovereignty in international environmental treaties: a call for exception clauses in international trade and investment law

This article examines the legal constitution of racialized climate injustice, assessing the racialized dynamics of property in the context of climate change. It explores these examples: first, the failure of the international climate regime to contest unjust appropriation of the atmosphere by industrialized countries regarding historical emissions; second, the limitations of the “no-harm” rule, which is effectively the internationalization of the domestic principles of the tort of nuisance, in providing compensation for the racialized harm caused by climate change; and third, how international investment law is allowing fossil fuel companies to seek compensation if governmental actions in response to climate concern impact their investment or hoped-for returns.

This paper argues that decarbonization will fail to deliver climate justice unless the transition to clean energy confronts the racialized political economy that has historically structured extractive activity and shaped international economic law. Grounding its analysis in racial capitalism, the paper contends that the growing demand for critical minerals risks reproducing patterns of exploitation, expropriation, and expulsion. Using lithium extraction in Chile as a case study, it shows how colonial legacies, dictator-era neoliberal reforms, and present-day regulatory architectures governing foreign investment and natural resource extraction have prioritized investors over human rights and the environment. Recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change provide a normative counterweight to international investment law and potentially a pathway for inclusive and transformative reforms. By foregrounding racial equity, the clean energy transition can avoid replicating the distributive injustices of the fossil fuel era.

This article examines the legal constitution of racialized climate injustice, assessing the racialized dynamics of property in the context of climate change. It explores these examples: first, the failure of the international climate regime to contest unjust appropriation of the atmosphere by industrialized countries regarding historical emissions; second, the limitations of the “no-harm” rule, which is effectively the internationalization of the domestic principles of the tort of nuisance, in providing compensation for the racialized harm caused by climate change; and third, how international investment law is allowing fossil fuel companies to seek compensation if governmental actions in response to climate concern impact their investment or hoped-for returns.

This paper argues that decarbonization will fail to deliver climate justice unless the transition to clean energy confronts the racialized political economy that has historically structured extractive activity and shaped international economic law. Grounding its analysis in racial capitalism, the paper contends that the growing demand for critical minerals risks reproducing patterns of exploitation, expropriation, and expulsion. Using lithium extraction in Chile as a case study, it shows how colonial legacies, dictator-era neoliberal reforms, and present-day regulatory architectures governing foreign investment and natural resource extraction have prioritized investors over human rights and the environment. Recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change provide a normative counterweight to international investment law and potentially a pathway for inclusive and transformative reforms. By foregrounding racial equity, the clean energy transition can avoid replicating the distributive injustices of the fossil fuel era.

This paper argues that decarbonization will fail to deliver climate justice unless the transition to clean energy confronts the racialized political economy that has historically structured extractive activity and shaped international economic law. Grounding its analysis in racial capitalism, the paper contends that the growing demand for critical minerals risks reproducing patterns of exploitation, expropriation, and expulsion. Using lithium extraction in Chile as a case study, it shows how colonial legacies, dictator-era neoliberal reforms, and present-day regulatory architectures governing foreign investment and natural resource extraction have prioritized investors over human rights and the environment. Recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change provide a normative counterweight to international investment law and potentially a pathway for inclusive and transformative reforms. By foregrounding racial equity, the clean energy transition can avoid replicating the distributive injustices of the fossil fuel era.

The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is one of the foundations of modern economic growth enabling the formation of capital, the transfer of technologies, employment, and integration into the value chains worldwide . The competition between the states is growing to have quality FDI with the help of stable legal system, predictable policies, and effective institutions . This paper contributes to a comparative legal and policy study of the Singapore investment regime in order to derive lessons that can be transferred to Pakistan. This is because it posits that the Singapore success can not be narrowed down to incentives, but to the system, coordinated architecture of rule-based governance, integrity in institutional coordination, believable dispute resolution, and discipline in anti-corruption enforcement. In comparison, the Pakistani disjointed investment laws, unstable policy, and lax enforcement appear to destroy investor confidence, even with obvious liberalization. The article also presents a novel contribution by showing how selective legal transplantation in place of wholesale imitation would improve the investment governance of Pakistan without compromising regulatory autonomy and sovereignty . It ends with context-related reforms that are based on codification of the investment law, institutional empowerment, arbitration capacity and treaty rationalization that is in line with the current international investment law tendencies.

This paper examines whether looted artefacts can fall within the definition of “investment” under Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and international investment law. While traditional mechanisms governing cultural property—such as UNESCO conventions, restitution claims, and diplomatic negotiations—have faced enforcement and jurisdictional limitations, this study explores an alternative legal lens by situating looted cultural artefacts within the evolving jurisprudence of investment treaty protection

Purpose The paper aims to recommend that developing countries, such as Vietnam, should review and modernize bilateral investment treaties (BITs), strengthen their domestic legal frameworks, develop impact assessment mechanisms and enhance their capacity for dispute prevention to respond effectively to unforeseen changes in circumstances. Design/methodology/approach First, primary sources include the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), BITs, free trade agreements (FTAs) and arbitration awards from significant investment disputes. Secondary sources, including academic articles and commentaries from leading international law experts, are systematically analyzed to build a theoretical framework. The analysis of arbitration decisions focuses particularly on landmark cases, concentrating on cases concerning economic crises, political transitions and environmental policy changes to identify trends in the application of the doctrine. The paper provides a comparative analysis, contrasting Vietnam’s old BITs with newer agreements such as CPTPP and EVFTA to assess the development of treaty language related to exceptions and regulatory space. Findings The disparity between old-generation BITs and new ones (e.g. CPTPP, EVFTA) creates challenges in striking a balance between investment protection and policy space for environmental, health and sustainable development. Research limitations/implications The research mostly combines analysis of Vietnam’s specific economic, environmental and political context for future application of the rebus sic stantibus doctrine. Practical implications Understanding and effectively applying the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is crucial. From this approach, countries can develop effective mechanisms to respond to economic and social changes without violating their international obligations. Besides, developing countries may require emergency measures affecting foreign investment, such as the temporary requisition of private property, restrictions on the export of essential medical supplies or the imposition of new safety and environmental regulations. Social implications Implementing policies to protect public interests and sustainable development; the general trend in investment law worldwide is a shift toward a sustainable approach linked to governance and environmental objectives. Originality/value For developing countries like Vietnam, studying this doctrine holds significant and practical importance.

Recent years have seen extensive debate on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The European Commission’s proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) seeks to recast ISDS by establishing a permanent two-tier adjudicatory system with an appellate instance, and by enhancing procedural transparency. The initiative aims to address the legitimacy crisis that has confronted conventional ISDS. However, resistance has emerged within the existing international legal order. Frictions have appeared in arbitral practice and treaty architecture. The MIC’s jurisdictional scheme exposes structural tensions between the delegation of sovereign authority and global governance frameworks. This paper employs a methodology that combines normative analysis with targeted case studies. The central claim is that the EU’s supranational model of judicial governance sits uneasily with sovereignty-centred premises of international investment law. Drawing on the CJEU’s judgments in Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV and République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, the analysis maps the fault lines between the MIC initiative and existing arbitration mechanisms. The salient issues concern jurisdictional allocation, conflicts of applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also shows that the MIC’s attempt to remedy arbitral inconsistency through institutional centralisation engages sensitive sovereignty concerns. Based on recent practice, the paper argues that the MIC is not a mere procedural reform. It constitutes a significant institutional transformation intended to shift international investment arbitration from decentralisation to centralisation. The EU’s institutional vision carries potential for legal and institutional innovation. Its successful implementation, however, depends on complex processes of international coordination and legal integration. To mitigate these tensions, this paper advances the principle of ‘differentiated and adaptive sovereignty’. The principle provides a flexible framework that preserves core sovereign prerogatives while accommodating reform, and that supports a more inclusive and adaptable international investment arbitration regime.

Abstract The fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard has emerged as one of the most frequently invoked and scrutinized protections in international investment law, offering a flexible yet controversial means of protecting foreign investors. Although it is often referred to as a “lawyers’ dream clause,” due to its expansive intepretative potential and the lack of precise legal language has led to inconsistent arbitral interpretations and an increasing number of investor claims. These challenges are particularly notable in the energy sector, where states’ sovereign right to regulate intersects with investors’ expectations of legal stability. This article critically examines the evolving contours of the fair and equitable treatment standard in energy-related investment disputes, identifying the factual and legal circumstances under which tribunals have found fair and equitable treatment violations. It asks whether the existing jurisprudence provides sufficient legal predictability and coherence, particularly in balancing investor protection with the host state’s sovereign right to regulate. This article provides a doctrinal and case-based analysis of the fair and equitable treatment standard, examining its normative evolution, treaty formulations, and interpretative patterns in arbitral practice.