Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) is one of the most frequently invoked protections in bilateral investment treaties (BITs), free trade agreement investment chapters, and multilateral instruments such as the Energy Charter Treaty. It obliges host states to accord foreign investors and their investments a minimum quality of governmental conduct, even where the investor has no specific contractual right at stake.
There is no single agreed definition. Tribunals and treaties have framed FET in two main ways:
- Autonomous standard: FET is read as a free-standing treaty obligation, interpreted by its ordinary meaning. This approach, common in older European BITs, tends to be investor-protective.
- Customary international law minimum standard: FET is tied to the international minimum standard of treatment for aliens. NAFTA Article 1105 was authoritatively interpreted this way by the Free Trade Commission's 2001 Note of Interpretation, and the approach carries into USMCA and CETA.
Through arbitral practice, recurring sub-elements have emerged:
- protection of the investor's legitimate expectations based on specific assurances by the state;
- due process and freedom from denial of justice;
- transparency, consistency, and stability of the regulatory framework;
- freedom from arbitrariness, discrimination, and harassment; and
- good faith in dealings with the investor.
Landmark awards shaping the standard include Tecmed v. Mexico (2003), which gave an expansive reading of legitimate expectations; Saluka v. Czech Republic (2006); and Glamis Gold v. United States (2009), which insisted on a high threshold tied to custom. More recent treaties — notably CETA (provisionally applied 2017) and USMCA (2020) — list closed categories of FET breach in an attempt to discipline tribunal discretion.
FET is the most successful cause of action in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): UNCTAD data consistently show it is invoked, and found to be breached, more often than expropriation. That prominence has made FET a focal point in the ongoing UNCITRAL Working Group III reform discussions on ISDS.
Example
In *Tecmed v. Mexico* (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, award 2003), the tribunal found Mexico breached the FET clause of the Spain–Mexico BIT by refusing to renew a hazardous waste landfill permit in a manner that frustrated the Spanish investor's legitimate expectations.
Frequently asked questions
Not always. Some treaties (e.g., USMCA, CETA, post-2004 US model BITs) explicitly tie FET to the customary minimum standard, while many older European BITs use FET as an autonomous, often broader standard.
Keep learning