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

This briefing paper examines the proliferation and nature of South-South Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), analyzing whether agreements between developing countries differ from the traditional North-South templates. It concludes that while some developing nations are beginning to introduce bespoke provisions and policy exceptions, the majority of South-South BITs continue to mirror the European models established in the 1950s and 1960s.

• Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between developing countries have grown significantly since the first such agreement in 1964. By July 2004, there were 653 South-South BITs, representing 28 per cent of the global total. Currently, these treaties account for approximately 26 per cent of all BITs, with annual new signings ranging between 22 per cent and 30 per cent of the total.
• China and India have been major drivers of South-South BITs. In 2007, China signed four new BITs with developing countries: Costa Rica, Cuba, Republic of Korea, and Seychelles, with about 60 per cent of its BITs from 2002 to 2007 being with other developing countries, primarily in Africa. In 2008, India signed five new BITs, contributing to a total of 13 South-South agreements that year.
• Most South-South BITs follow the traditional North-South European template because the dynamic between a more developed Southern country and a less developed partner often mirrors the North-South dynamic. Additionally, many Southern countries have historically lacked the capacity to negotiate specialist legal instruments, leading them to rely on existing models; for instance, South Africa used the South Africa–UK BIT as a template without fully understanding the implications of the UK Model.
• Some developing countries have used South-South negotiations to create more flexibleC bespoke provisions and protect policy space. Singapore has included general exceptions in BITs with China, Vietnam, Pakistan, Czech Republic, Mongolia, Egypt, Mauritius, and Cambodia to protect essential security, public health, and animal/plant health—exceptions absent from its earlier BITs with the Netherlands, UK, and Germany. Other examples include the Chile–South Africa BIT (1998), which contains an exception for measures to redress racial differences, and the India-Singapore CECA, which omits Most Favored Nation (MFN) and Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) provisions.
• South-South BITs generally differ from Canadian, Japanese, and U.S. models by not creating rights of market access and establishment or expressly prohibiting performance requirements. Regional agreements also vary: the COMESA Investment Agreement provides for market access in a qualified and staged manner, while the SADC protocol does not contain market access, national treatment, or protection and security provisions.

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} }