IISD Best Practices Series: Terminating a Bilateral Investment Treaty
This paper from IISD's Best Practices series examines recent state practice in bilateral investment treaty (BIT) terminations and related drafting, along with presenting options and recommendations for states interested in addressing their stock of older BITs through termination and renegotiation.
The paper begins by examining treaty termination in the context of public international law, along with the types of termination clauses that are common in BITs. It then examines recent trends in the drafting of termination and survival clauses in investment treaties. The paper considers how these terminations are implemented in practice, as well as what states have done to address survival clauses when terminating these treaties. Lastly, the paper sets out factors that states may wish to consider in deciding how to terminate a BIT, and outlines recommendations for preparing for and carrying out termination.
Additional downloads
You might also be interested in
IISD Best Practices Series: Registration and Approval Requirements in Investment Treaties
This paper analyzes registration and approval requirements for investments in investment treaties, and examines the interpretation of such provisions by arbitral tribunals.
Transparency in the Dispute Settlement Process: Country best practices
In many investor-state arbitrations, it is difficult or impossible even to know that the dispute has been initiated, what the issues and arguments are, and what decisions or awards have been made to resolve the matter.
Compensation Under Investment Treaties: What are the problems and what can be done?
In this brief, the authors explore the subject of compensation under investment treaties, as well as options for reform, drawing from their analysis in a related longer paper.
IISD Best Practices Series: Compensation Under Investment Treaties
This paper from IISD's Best Practices series takes a deep dive into the legal principles, arbitral jurisprudence, and lessons learned from how compensation is treated in investor–state arbitration, while presenting possible options for reform.