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.

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.

Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are agreements between two states that protect foreign investors by ensuring fair treatment, preventing expropriation, and providing dispute resolution mechanisms.

International investment law shapes economic policies in developing nations by attracting FDI while restricting regulatory sovereignty. While it fosters growth, it raises concerns over investor-state disputes, financial burdens, and environmental sustainability.

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.

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.