Fair and Equitable Treatment in Indian International Investment Agreements: An overview

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document analyzes the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) clauses in 68 Indian International Investment Agreements (IIAs). It finds that 66 of these agreements include FET obligations, though most fail to define the normative content of the term, leaving interpretation to arbitral tribunals. The author categorizes these provisions into model-IIA, modified-model IIA, and content-indicative types, noting that only a small minority link FET to the customary international law minimum standard of treatment.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Out of 68 Indian International Investment Agreements (IIAs) studied, 66 contain a Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) principle, meaning India has undertaken a treaty obligation to treat foreign investments fairly and equitably in those cases.
  • The India-Turkey and India-Singapore IIAs are the only two among the 68 studied that do not contain the FET principle. While the India-Turkey IIA includes a Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) provision that could allow investors to borrow FET provisions from other Indian IIAs, the India-Singapore IIA lacks both FET and MFN provisions.
  • The majority of Indian IIAs are divided into 'model-IIA' (32 agreements) and 'modified-model IIA' (27 agreements) types, neither of which provide the normative content or a definition of FET, leaving the interpretation to arbitrators.
  • Seven IIAs are classified as 'content-indicative' because they provide some direction on the meaning of FET. Specifically, the India-Mexico and India-Korea IIAs explicitly link FET to the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens to prevent arbitral tribunals from interpreting the provision too expansively.
  • The author notes that the absence of an FET provision in the India-Singapore IIA may have been influenced by the 'Enron debacle', although this lack of FET was not a general feature of other IIAs signed around the same time.

Cite the original document

APA
Ranjan, P. (2011). Fair and Equitable Treatment in Indian International Investment Agreements: An overview. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_fair_equitable_treatment.pdf
Chicago
Ranjan, Prabhash. Fair and Equitable Treatment in Indian International Investment Agreements: An overview. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2011. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_fair_equitable_treatment.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Ranjan |first1=Prabhash |title=Fair and Equitable Treatment in Indian International Investment Agreements: An overview |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=2011 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_fair_equitable_treatment.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{ranjan2011fair, author = {Ranjan, Prabhash}, title = {{Fair and Equitable Treatment in Indian International Investment Agreements: An overview}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2011}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_fair_equitable_treatment.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated