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.

Against the backdrop of accelerating cross-border mobility of global technological factors, the scale of China–U.S. cross-border technology investment has continued to expand, yet the investment failure rate reaches 37.2%, significantly higher than that of domestic technology investment (18.5%). Addressing key challenges such as multidimensional risk complexity, covert transmission pathways, and high difficulty of prevention and control, this study draws on risk transmission theory, technology diffusion theory, and institutional distance theory to develop a four-dimensional risk identification framework covering technology, market, institution, and finance. Using a dataset of 486 China–U.S. cross-border technology investment projects from 2018 to 2023, we empirically reveal a three-stage risk transmission mechanism characterized by “chain triggering–network diffusion–compound amplification.” The results show that institutional risk is the core initial risk (contribution rate 38.6%), transmitting through a chain of “institutional differences → impeded technological adaptation → market entry barriers → tightened funding chains.” Cross-transmission between technology risk and market risk increases the probability of investment failure by 2.3 times. Furthermore, the strength of intellectual property protection and the signing status of bilateral investment treaties exert significant moderating effects on risk transmission, with moderation coefficients of −0.27 and −0.31, respectively. Based on the empirical findings, this paper proposes targeted solutions from three perspectives—risk early warning, pathway blocking, and collaborative governance—providing theoretical support and practical guidance for reducing risk losses in China–U.S. cross-border technology investment.

In investor-state arbitration—the principal mechanism enabling foreign investors to bring claims against host-states—the principle of good faith functions as an omnipresent force, intricately woven into the fabric of its proceedings. Its influence permeates every aspect of the field: where the sovereignty of host-states and the conduct of foreign investors are examined, tribunals frequently invoke the principle to construe parties’ obligations, with findings of good or bad faith often determining the outcomes of disputes. Despite its integral role, the principle remains susceptible to inconsistent interpretation and uncertain application, reinforcing stakeholders’ concerns regarding the urgent need for reform. This article examines the necessity of regulating the application of the principle of good faith in investor-state arbitration and explores potential reforms toward that end. Employing a doctrinal methodology, it draws upon arbitral decisions, UNCITRAL discussions, and relevant literature. The findings reveal that the urgency of regulation is most apparent in contexts involving corruption, treaty shopping, the fair and equitable treatment standard, and the allocation of costs. To address these issues, the article proposes both principle-based reforms—such as adopting a coherent definition of good faith and incorporating it explicitly into bilateral investment treaties (BITs)—and structural reforms, including the adoption of a doctrine of precedent, the establishment of an appellate mechanism, a ban on double-hatting, and the introduction of clear rules on cost allocation. Ultimately, regulating the principle of good faith is vital to ensuring greater predictability, coherence, and legitimacy within the investor-state arbitration system.

This study analyzes how the New Institutional Economics (NIE) theory, through the preparation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) is used to protect bilateral cooperation activities between Indonesia and Timor-Leste, especially to provide certainty and protection for investors in making investments. The importance of preparing the BIT between Indonesia and Timor-Leste will be a strategic step toward increasing bilateral cooperation between the two countries, which remains generally non-binding, into an agreement with international legal force. The high value of Indonesia's outward investment in Timor-Leste requires an institutionalization tool that can legally bind both countries. The Bilateral Investment Treaty is an institutional tool that can provide clarity on the norms, ethics, and rules that will regulate investment cooperation between the sovereign entities, Indonesia and Timor-Leste.

Abstract Why do communist countries sign bilateral investment treaties (BITs)? This article explores this question through the case of Yugoslavia, the first communist state to do so. In 1974, Yugoslavia signed a BIT with France, paving the way for further investment treaties – both in Yugoslavia and, soon after, in other communist countries. These developments sparked intense debate within the Yugoslav Communist Party, with some factions viewing them as a betrayal of Marxist–Leninist principles. While Western powers welcomed the move, it was strongly criticized by Eastern Bloc countries, particularly the Soviet Union, as ideological heresy. This paper analyses the complex motivations behind Yugoslavia’s foreign investment policy in the 1960s and 1970s, arguing that it was driven by domestic political, geopolitical, and ideological factors – not just economic considerations. Domestically, BITs were linked to the Communist Party’s efforts to maintain political power and stability. Geopolitically, they served as tools to secure international allies. Ideologically, the policy sought to promote a distinct Yugoslav model of socialism – one that blended socialist principles, workers’ self-management, market economics, and coexistence with both capitalist and socialist states. This ideological dimension, overlooked in the literature, highlights how BITs were not merely economic instruments but also tools for advancing a hybrid economic and foreign policy that challenged both capitalist and Soviet orthodoxies.

Purpose This study aims to investigate the idea that the failure of one pattern of cooperation plays a significant role in the emergence of an alternative pattern of cooperation. Specifically, whether the failure of multilateralism increased the odds of adoption for bilateralism in the investment domain. Design/methodology/approach The survival analysis models assess the impact of failure of multilateralism and the success of bilateralism on the signing of additional bilateral agreements in the investment domain using data from 1958 to 2023. Findings The results demonstrate that country dyads engaged in failed multilateral negotiations were more likely to sign Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), with positive feedback from success by signed BITs also reinforcing the pattern. Research limitations/implications In the aftermath of failed multilateral episodes, dyads engaged in the multilateral effort turn to bilateral agreements as an alternative forum for cooperation, increasing the momentum for bilateral forms of cooperation. Practical implications Rejection of limited multilateral agreements can reshape patterns of cooperation toward more bilateral agreements. Social implications Failed multilateral cooperation can help parties identify potential partners for bilateral cooperation. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to quantitatively examine the impact of failed multilateral agreements on the signing of bilateral agreements.

Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.

The International Investment Arbitration (IIA) method, known as the ISDS mechanism, is majorly divided into two devices: ICSID and non-ICSID arbitrations. The ICSID arbitration mechanism has been the most recognized dispute settlement mechanism formed by the ICSID convention. Non-ICSID arbitrations mainly comprise ways available other than ICSID arbitration, e.g., UNCITRAL, International Chamber of Commerce, London Court of International Arbitration, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, etc. The organic nature of the International Investment regime has led to the progressive practice of dispute settlement mechanisms all over the world since the rise of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) in the nineties. However, the scholarships and empirical studies show that the arbitration panels are not devoid of systemic or institutional biases. This conception is resulting in an era of resistance among the State parties to any BIT. This paper attempts to find out and justify the critique of institutional biases with the help of some secondary data and cases. In addition, the paper shall also include the approaches of South Asian countries as host states in foreign direct investment under specific BIT protection. FENI UNIVERSITY JOURNAL, 2024, 3(1), ISSN [2518-3869], PP. (223-234)

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.

<p>This article (published in the Austrian Yearbook On <span>International </span><span>Arbitration 2026)</span><span>  examines whether the European Union and its Member States can effectively eliminate investment protection for fossil fuel investments under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) either by remaining parties to the modernised ECT or by withdrawing from it. Following the adoption of the ECT modernisation package in December 2024, the  novel “flexibility mechanism” was introduced through amendments to Annex NI of the ECT, enabling contracting parties to phase out protection for fossil fuel investments within their territories. The EU makes use of this mechanism. The article shows that this technique—based on modifications of annexes rather than the treaty text—has immediate and legally binding effects for newly made fossil-fuel based investments from September 2025 onwards, irrespective of provisional application or the entry into force of the modernised ECT, and that it establishes a differentiated phase-out regime for existing </span><span>fossil-fuel based investments</span><span> .</span></p> <p>The article contrasts this mechanism with the alternative strategy of withdrawal from the ECT combined with the EU’s inter se agreement excluding intra-EU investor–State arbitration and the operation of the sunset clause. It argues that, while withdrawal eliminates protection for fossil fuel investments in principle, its legal effects are delayed and structurally limited by the survival clause, which continues to apply in extra-EU relations, and by the contested permissibility of inter se modifications under the ECT and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.</p> <p>The article concludes that neither modernisation nor withdrawal can, on their own, comprehensively neutralise fossil fuel investment protection. In particular, it highlights the need for additional inter se arrangements with non-EU ECT parties and for the reform of extra-EU bilateral investment treaties, which continue to provide parallel protection for fossil fuel investments irrespective of both modernisation of the ECT and withdrawal from the ECT. </p>

Foreign direct investment (FDI) plays a pivotal role in fostering economic growth, particularly in developing economies such as the Philippines. While much of the literature emphasizes economic determinants of FDI, limited research has examined the interaction between law and economics in shaping investment sustainability. This study adopts a descriptive qualitative approach, combining doctrinal legal research with economic analysis, to investigate how regulatory certainty, institutional frameworks, and dispute settlement mechanisms influence FDI inflows. Drawing on primary sources such as the Foreign Investments Act of 1991, bilateral investment treaties, and international arbitral decisions, as well as secondary data from UNCTAD, the World Bank, and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the research explores the legal and economic dynamics of FDI from 2000 to 2025. Findings reveal that while economic reforms and comparative advantages have driven FDI growth in the Philippines, legal certainty and compliance with international investment norms remain critical in sustaining investor confidence. This dual analysis underscores that inclusive and sustainable growth can only be achieved when foreign investment is supported by transparent legal frameworks, effective dispute resolution, and alignment with international obligations. The article contributes to bridging the gap between economic studies and legal discourse on FDI, offering recommendations for strengthening regulatory mechanisms to enhance the Philippines’ long-term investment climate.

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.

Calls to defend sovereignty from international investment treaties are common in Latin America. Many protest that states are often put in the difficult position of choosing between their constitution and foreign investment, reducing the space for genuine democratic emancipation. This article proposes that we, Latin Americans, have been misguided by this representation. Extractivism, perhaps the major barrier to Latin American emancipation, thrives because of constitutions and international investment treaties. These two legal orders create a legal imagination and enact the legal rules necessary for nature’s exploitation. In this article, we map how constitutions and investment treaties consolidate and reproduce extractivism, recognising that constitutions provide some means for a paradigm shift, for instance through environmental activism or constitutional reforms. However, global and domestic extractivist elites can always rely on investment law to counter unwanted environmental measures or resist transformative moments, locking in the present extractivist mode of accumulation.

Bangladesh, despite its abundant natural resources and strategic location, facessignificant challenges in transitioning to renewable energy (RE). While theGovernment of Bangladesh (GoB) has committed to increasing RE capacity to 30percent by 2030 and 40 percent by 2041, actual deployment remains slow,comprising only about 3.57 percent of installed capacity in 2022. BilateralInvestment Treaties (BITs) have traditionally been used to attract foreign directinvestment (FDI), but few, if any, of Bangladesh’s existing BITs explicitly addressthe renewable energy sector. This article argues that incorporating RE-specificclauses in future or renegotiated BITs is critical for fostering a stable investmentclimate, mitigating legal risks, and accelerating sustainable energy development.Drawing on Bangladesh’s policy frameworks—including the Sustainable andRenewable Energy Development Authority (SREDA) Act (2012)—this articleidentifies key legal gaps and proposes BIT provisions that could facilitate REinvestment. Through a qualitative analysis of Bangladesh’s existing 31 BITs andlessons from global best practices, we provide a comprehensive blueprint to alignBIT frameworks with national energy goals, thereby strengthening Bangladesh’sposition in global climate commitments and enhancing energy security

Abstract This article assesses critically investment treaty arbitration (ITA) awards that have arisen out of disturbances and armed conflicts. A detailed analysis of these ITA awards reveals that, although international humanitarian law (IHL) applies alongside international investment law (IIL) in times of armed conflict, tribunals have largely ignored IHL-related considerations in their deliberations in relevant ITAs. Given the likelihood that ITAs resulting from armed conflict will continue to arise in the future, distinguished scholars have increasingly called for the consideration of the role of IHL in ITAs. In the light of these growing calls for a reconceptualization of the legal framework governing foreign investments in war, this article engages in an in-depth analysis of existing arbitral practice in this space. The article queries, on the basis of relevant cases, which legal questions emerge in ITAs arising out of armed conflict to which IHL may provide answers.

We provide an introductory survey of the academic literature addressing the political and economic issues surrounding foreign direct investment in developing countries. We begin with an examination of the motivations behind foreign direct investment before turning to governance issues relating to the attraction and harnessing the consequences of international investments, which extend well beyond questions of employment and economic growth. We then turn to the investment treaty regime and the ways in which it has decreased developing states’ policy spaces. Ultimately, while foreign direct investment has been promoted as a pathway for economic development, it has proven to be a double-edged sword.

Abstract This study reviews developments in Burkina Faso from 2020 to 2025 to understand how its leader, Ibrahim Traoré, has approached resource governance through legal action, public policy and institutional change. The research focuses on the application of international legal principles, such as the UNGA Resolution 1803 ( XVII ) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, alongside responses from international investors and arbitration bodies. The findings show that although Traoré’s policies are a strong push for permanent control over natural resources, their implementation is made difficult by weak institutions, binding investment treaties and limited support from regional partners. Moreover, although public discourse and youth mobilisation around resource justice have increased, risks related to authoritarianism, corruption and exclusion remain. We believe that sustainable resource governance in Africa requires not only political will but also institutional reform, transparent legal frameworks and inclusive policymaking. It concludes that international law must evolve to better reflect the developmental priorities and sovereignty claims of resource-rich but economically marginalised states.