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.

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.

Globalization has transformed investment law, shaping foreign direct investment (FDI) flows, regulatory frameworks, and investor protections. Bilateral treaties, dispute mechanisms, and economic integration reflect the evolving legal landscape of cross-border investments.