South-South Bilateral Investment Treaties: The same old story?

The document examines the proliferation of South-South bilateral investment treaties, noting that while their number has grown significantly—accounting for approximately 26 per cent of all BITs—they largely replicate the 'old North-South template' designed to protect investor assets. While some exceptions exist where developing nations have introduced policy space elements or omitted certain guarantees, the author concludes that most South-South BITs still follow traditional Northern models due to limited negotiating capacity and the mirroring of North-South power dynamics between more and less developed Southern partners.

• Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between developing countries have increased significantly, rising from 44 in 1990 to 653 by July 2004. Currently, these South-South BITs represent approximately 26 per cent of the total number of BITs worldwide.
• South-South BITs generally replicate the traditional North-South European template. This is attributed to the fact that the relationship between a more developed Southern country and a less developed partner often mirrors the North-South dynamic, and many Southern countries have historically lacked the capacity to negotiate bespoke legal instruments.
• A minority of South-South agreements have introduced 'policy space' elements. For instance, several of Singapore's BITs include provisions ensuring the treaty does not limit a state's right to take actions to protect essential security interests, public health, or prevent diseases and pests in animals and plants.
• South-South BITs typically differ from North-South models by not creating rights of market access and establishment, and by generally refraining from expressly prohibiting performance requirements.
• Some developing nations have used South-South negotiations to omit specific protection guarantees. Examples include the SADC protocol, which lacks national treatment and protection and security provisions, and the India-Singapore CECA investment chapter, which omits Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET).

APA

Malik, M. (2011). South-South Bilateral Investment Treaties: The same old story? International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_south_bits.pdf

Chicago

Malik, Mahnaz. South-South Bilateral Investment Treaties: The same old story? International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2011. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_south_bits.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Malik |first1=Mahnaz |title=South-South Bilateral Investment Treaties: The same old story? |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=2011 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_south_bits.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{malik2011southsouth, author = {Malik, Mahnaz}, title = {{South-South Bilateral Investment Treaties: The same old story?}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2011}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/dci_2010_south_bits.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }