Bilateral Investment Treaties and India

BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES AND INDIA
BITs: An Overview
Bilateral investment Treaties (BITs) are agreements between two Countries (States) for the
reciprocal promotion and protection of investments in each other's territories by individuals
and companies situated in either State. The following are the essential clauses covered under
BIT s:
1. Applicability
2. Fair and E quitable Treatment and Full Protection & Security
3. National treatment and Most-favored-nation treatment,
4. Expropriation,
5. Dispute settlement mechanisms, both between States and between an investor and a State.
BITs encourage foreign investors to invest in a State and there by contributing towards
overall develo pments and advancements of the economy.
India and its Tryst with BITs
It was in mid 90s that the BITs were initiated by the Government of India. The pretext was to
offer favourable conditions and treaty based protection to the foreign investors and
investments. For example , the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation
Agreement (CECA) provides for exemption on import duties for investment in infrastructure
sector, which would eventually attract the investors from abroad to invest in the growing
economy of India with enhanced securities against adverse changes, thus promoting
investment inflow. T hough it is difficult to quantify the benefits of BITs, it invariably results
in increased investments inflows, encourage s transfer of technology and modern management
skills.
A look at various BITs to which India is a party will make it clear that each BIT is quite
different from the other in its own way although there are many common characters present.
These common characters are in form of specific rights. The basic premise is that the
government will not put the investors and their investments to risks which are either
unreasonable or inappropriate.
One of the most noticeable features of the Indian BITs is that it does not give ‘a right to make
investments’ in India. All rights, under the BITs to which India is a party, can be exercised
only after making investments in India . However, this issue can be debated considering
Article 3.1 of Model BIT of India , which promises to provide favorable conditions to make
investment in India. It is important to note that the Indian government retains the freedom to
determine which sectors are open to foreign investments and under what terms and conditions
can those investments be made. It is of utmost importance to note that the investments made
in India must be established or acquired in accordance with the national laws of India.
1. Applicability:
With regard to applicability of the BITs, the general trend remains that the Indian BITs
generally apply to existing and future investments pursuant to the date on which India entered
into the BIT. Nevertheless, there remains exception to this rule. The BITs with few States
like Egypt, Sweden, and Romania etc have a limited scope and their applicability is only to
the investments which have arisen after the treaty has come into force. The disputes that may
have arisen prior to these BITs are excluded.
Indian BITs give a very broad definition to the terms “investment” and “investor”. The
foreign investor, in such circumstances, even if its home State is not having a BIT with India,
can have the benefits by creating a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)/ Special Purpose Business
(SPB) in a State , which has a BIT with India. However, there are few BITs which mandate
that investor should be having substantive business operations where it has been incorporated
for example t he BITs with Netherland, Switzerland and Singapore.
2. Fair & Equitable Treatment and Full Protection & Security:

Almost all the Indian BITs contain the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) which again is a
principle very strongly attached to the genesis of a BIT. The principle of FET creates
minimum standards of treatment which has to be followed by the host state. A number of
successful investment claims are based on breach of FET standard. In wide terms the FET
principle mandates States to have a stable and predictable legal framework regulating
investments which meets the reasonable expectations of the investors. The FET standard,
though a common feature is an elastic concept which may vary in different treaties. The four
basic “pillars” as has developed over the period are protection of legitimate expectations of
investors, transparency and stability, non-denial of justice and prohibition of coercion and
harassment.
Another principle near to the FET principle but different from it is the principle of Full
Protection and Security (FPS). The understanding of the FPS is protection from physical
violence, which might be against the assets of the investments. The violence may be by the
host State or even by third parties, though the host State has only an obligation of due
diligence and not binding obligations to prevent third party violence. In case of India , there
are a number of BITs requiring the host State to provide protection and security. However,
there are exceptions such as BITs with Egypt, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Australia etc which do not
have an FPS clause. There are few BITs which require only “Protection and Security” which
may be arguably differentiated from “Full Protection and Security” as being a lesser degree
of protection.
3. National Treatment and Most favoured Nation Treatment:

The principle of National Treatment which is quintessential is part of the all the Indian BITs
but the Most Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment principal is not present under the investment
chapter of CECA with Singapore and also Comprehensive Economic Partners hip Agreement
(CEPA) with Korea. While the principle of National Treatment ensures that a foreign investor
is treated at par with the domestic investor and is not subject to any unfair treatment, a MFN
clause enables the investor to claim any favorable right that is available to any other State
having BIT with the host State. It is interesting to note a MFN clause offers both procedural
and substantive protection to the investors. However, again both MFN and National
Treatment clause are not absolute in nature and are subject to conditions and restrictions in
some respects.
4. Expropriation:
It is universally recognized the host States have limited conditions which give them right to
expropriate investment of foreign investments. A legal expropriation should satisfy the
following conditions: (1) It must have a public purpose, (2) It should be not be discriminatory
or arbitrary, (3) It must be conducted in accordance with due process and (4) It must be
accompanied by adequate compensation.
Expropriation can be of 2 types:

A. Direct expropriation: It occurs where the host State formally takes title of the expropriated
asset and
B. Indirect Expropriation: This happens where there is a substantial and lasting or long-
drawn-out interference with the investment which divests the investor of host of incentives.
The Indian BIT is in lines with the international standards and is usually followed uniformly.
The Indian Constitution also entails the principle in Article 300A which encompasses only to
direct expropriation. Whether indirect expropriation is covered by Article 300 A remains a
debatable issue.
5. Investor-State Dispute Resolution:

Probably, the most important factor that makes BIT very important in the eyes of investors is
that under a BIT an investor can directly initiate arbitral proceeding against a State without
approaching its own government. In Indian BITs, the investors have an option of approaching
ICSID or initiating arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules. However, it is an important
concern that India is not party to the ICSID convention. Though there is a possibility of
having arbitration under the Additional Facility Rules of ICSID, it still remains different from
a typical ICSID arbitration and a party will nevertheless have to enforce the award under the
New York Convention.
The Journey so far:-

India had an unpleasant experience with the Dahbol Project which led to a least 2 BIT claims
by the project companies, as well as 7 BIT claims by the project lenders. All of these 9 claims
against India have since been settled. 1 Post the dispute, India has been contemplating to
amend its BITs so as to attenuate the protections accorded to foreign investors under the
BITs. Nothing has been evident so far on the papers. However, in light of increasing
knowledge and publicity of BITs and increasing number of companies being interested to
know more about it and use it in actuality a lot has to be seen in near future.
1
source http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/webiteiit20052_en.pdf
INDIAN BITs AT A GLANCE*
Ø India signed its first BIT in 1994 with the United Kingdom .
Ø Since 1994, India has signed BITs with 75 States
Ø Out of which 66 are already in force and 9 are yet to be entered into force.
Ø Negotiations with another 25 States are u nd erway.
Ø Around 4 0 BITs are with develo ping and l ess developed States.
Ø Around 20 of the BITs enforced have been done in last five years.
Ø Also, India has concluded Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreements
(CECAs), This includes a chapter on investment with Korea and Singapore;
(*source: - www.unctad.org)
-Prateek Bagaria and Vyapak Desai
Int’l Litigation and Dispute Resolution Team
Nishith Desai Associates

Bilateral Investment Treaties and India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bilateral Investment Treaties and India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bilateral Investment Treaties and India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES AND INDIA

India and its Tryst with BITs

2. Fair & Equitable Treatment and Full Protection & Security:

3. National Treatment and Most favoured Nation Treatment:

Expropriation can be of 2 types:

5. Investor-State Dispute Resolution:

The Journey so far:-

-Prateek Bagaria and Vyapak Desai

Int’l Litigation and Dispute Resolution Team

Nishith Desai Associates

You might also like