Jurisprudential Drift in International Investment Law: From the Minimum Standard to Fair and Equitable Treatment

Barry Hashimoto, Kevin W. Gray and Kabir Duggal

No 9564y_v1, SocArXiv from Center for Open Science

Abstract: The meaning of the fair and equitable treatment standard in international investment law remains unsettled. One interpretation ties it to the customary minimum standard of treatment, familiar from the Neer case; another treats it as a more demanding standard deriving from autonomous treaty or customary obligations. State practice, scholarly commentary, and arbitral decisions can be marshaled for both views. In recent decades, however, tribunals have gravitated toward the autonomous interpretation, over the objections of certain writers and the sustained resistance of many states—most notably the U.S., a principal architect of international investment law and a major capital exporter. This article asks why. It surveys and synthesizes leading theories from international political economy, sociology, and law, identifying the contributions and limits of the resulting accounts. It then advances a new theory of jurisprudential drift as coordinated equilibrium maintenance, drawing on insider accounts of arbitration practice and game-theoretic models of cooperation. Senior arbitrators and elite counsel use general principles of arbitration and treaty interpretation to entrench broader interpretations of investment treaties. This equilibrium is sustained by reputational discipline within networks of specialists and practitioners, coupled with interrelated mechanisms of secrecy, judicial economy, and peer review. The article then traces the minimum standard’s doctrinal development, the rise of the modern investment treaty regime, and the evolution of fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice, state practice, and academic commentary. It argues that prevailing legal explanations cannot account for the observed trajectory of arbitral decisions and that the proposed theory better explains the shift toward broader interpretations of the fair and equitable treatment standard in the case law.

Date: 2026-04-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-his, nep-hpe and nep-law
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/69d9217b17c0355abb78eb94/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:socarx:9564y_v1

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9564y_v1

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in SocArXiv from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().