2017/10/01 by Simon Batifort, J. Benton Heath
Business, Management and Accounting · Social Sciences · #Global Peace and Security Dynamics #International Arbitration and Investment Law #International Law and Human Rights
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/ajil.2017.77
crossref issued 2017/10/01 · crossref published 2017/10/01 · crossref published-print 2017/10/01 · openalex publication_date 2017/10/01 · crossref published-online 2018/02/13 · crossref created 2018/02/13 · crossref deposited 2020/10/28 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/07/29 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Abstract This article challenges the conventional wisdom that MFN clauses in investment treaties can always be used to “import” substantive standards of treatment (e.g. FET). It argues that most tribunals permitting this use of MFN clauses have relied on presumptions and have ignored meaningful variations among clauses. It also points out that states are increasingly questioning the conventional view, and that a recent arbitral award has firmly rejected an attempt to use an MFN clause to import substantive standards. It concludes by sketching the terms of the new MFN debate.