The Philip Morris v. Uruguay case reaffirmed states' rights to regulate in the public interest, particularly for health measures. The ICSID tribunal ruled that Uruguay's tobacco regulations did not constitute expropriation or unfair treatment, setting a key precedent.

The Siemens v. Argentina case reaffirmed investor protections under BITs, ruling Argentina’s termination of Siemens’ contract as unlawful expropriation. The ICSID tribunal awarded Siemens over $217 million, reinforcing fair treatment and state obligations in investment disputes.

The SD Myers v. Canada case set key precedents in NAFTA arbitration, clarifying national treatment, minimum standard of treatment, and damages in non-expropriation cases. The Tribunal found Canada's PCB export ban discriminatory, awarding SDMI CAN$6 million in compensation.

International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) and International Investment Arbitration (IIA) differ in scope, legal frameworks, and policy concerns. ICA resolves private disputes, while IIA involves state sovereignty, public interest, and investment treaty obligations.

Metalclad v. Mexico highlights indirect expropriation under NAFTA, where regulatory actions deprived an investor of economic use. The tribunal ruled in favor of Metalclad, awarding $16.5M, but a Canadian court partially annulled the decision, limiting its scope.

The Tecmed v. Mexico case (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2) established that politically motivated regulatory actions can constitute expropriation. The tribunal ruled that Mexico’s refusal to renew a landfill permit violated investor protections, awarding $5.5M in damages.

Expropriation in international investment law is the compulsory taking of foreign investors' assets by a host state, balancing sovereign rights with investment protection. It includes direct and indirect forms, requiring fair compensation and due process.

The Chorzow Factory case (1927) established that unlawful expropriation by a state requires full reparation, restoring the injured party to its original position or providing compensation, setting a precedent in international law on state responsibility.

The WTO evolved from GATT to better address global trade challenges, expand trade rules to services and intellectual property, and establish a stronger dispute resolution system, ensuring fairness and predictability in international trade.

The regulatory taking doctrine in international investment law mandates compensation when state regulations significantly impact investments, even without formal expropriation, balancing sovereign regulation and investor protection.

In Saipem S.p.A. v. Bangladesh, ICSID ruled that judicial interference leading to loss of contractual rights is indirect expropriation. This case broadened protection for foreign investors under international investment law.

The doctrine of regulatory taking in international investment law ensures compensation when state regulations significantly impact foreign investments, even without formal expropriation. Balancing sovereign regulation and investor rights remains a key challenge.

Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) ensures stability, transparency, and non-discrimination in investment law. It protects investors' legitimate expectations and prevents arbitrary actions. Its evolving interpretation impacts global investment disputes and treaty practices.

Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment ensures foreign investors receive treatment no less favorable than investors from other nations. While promoting non-discrimination, its application in dispute resolution and substantive protections remains debated in investment law.

An umbrella clause in investment treaties mandates host states to honor commitments related to investments, elevating breaches of local obligations to international disputes. It enhances investor protection, though its scope and applicability remain debated in arbitration.

An actionable claim is a claim to an unsecured debt or a beneficial interest in movable property not in possession, recognized by civil courts. It is transferable under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and is classified as "goods" under GST law.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) play a crucial role in protecting software by ensuring legal safeguards for creators. While copyright protects the expression of code, patents offer broader protection for innovative software functions, balancing innovation and competition.

The Google LLC v. CCI case (2023) upheld a ₹1337.76 crore penalty for Google’s abuse of dominance in the Android ecosystem. The NCLAT found Google imposed unfair conditions on OEMs, restricting competition. Some CCI directives were modified, but the penalty remained.

White-collar crimes in India, often committed by individuals in positions of trust, involve fraud, corruption, and financial misconduct. With increasing globalization and technology, such crimes have evolved, demanding stricter regulations and enforcement for accountability.

Abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002, occurs when a dominant enterprise exploits or excludes competitors in a relevant market. Section 4 prohibits unfair practices like predatory pricing, denying market access, or restricting innovation and competition.

The Model India BIT (2016) redefines India’s investment treaty framework, balancing investor protection with state sovereignty. It introduces clear investment definitions, excludes MFN clauses, limits ISDS, and prioritizes regulatory autonomy, addressing earlier flaws.

Anti-dumping laws prevent unfair trade practices by counteracting the sale of products at unfairly low prices. Governed by the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement, these laws ensure fair competition by imposing duties on dumped imports that harm domestic industries.

International investment law governs foreign investments, balancing investor rights with state regulatory powers. It involves IIAs, arbitration mechanisms, and standards like fair treatment and non-discrimination, while addressing public policy and sovereignty challenges.

Trade disputes arise when nations disagree on trade rules or practices. The WTO resolves these disputes through its Dispute Settlement Mechanism, guided by the DSU. This structured process ensures fairness, predictability, and compliance with trade agreements.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ensures uniform application of EU law across Member States through direct proceedings and preliminary rulings. Its role in legal integration, judicial supremacy, and shaping key legal principles is pivotal for the EU.