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.

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.

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.