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.

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.

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

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.

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.