Fair and Equitable Treatment

  • Patrick DumberryEmail author
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 15)


This chapter examines the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard clause contained in the CETA Investment Chapter. I will first examine the reasons why the provision is novel and very unique in the already diverted world of FET clauses. One notable feature of this clause is the extent to which the text is similar to the way NAFTA tribunals have interpreted the FET clause (Article 1105). For this reason, the second part of this chapter analyses NAFTA case law of the last 20 years.


Fair and equitable treatment (FET) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Legitimate expectations Denial of justice and due process Arbitrary and discriminatory conduct 


  1. Aguilar Alvarez G, William WP (2003) The new face of investment arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11. Yale J Int Law 28:365Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez JE (2011) The return of the state. Minnesota J Int Law 20:241Google Scholar
  3. Barrera EB (2017) The case for removing the fair and equitable treatment standard from NAFTA. CIGI Papers No. 128Google Scholar
  4. Bernasconi-Osterwalder N (2013) Commentary to the draft investment chapter of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Int Inst Sustain DevGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Howard M (2014) A response to the European Commission’s December 2013 Document “Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)”. Int Inst Sustain Dev, February 2014Google Scholar
  6. Diehl A (2012) The core standard of international investment protection: fair and equitable treatment. Wolters KluwerGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolzer R (2006) Fair and equitable treatment international law. Remarks ASIL Proc. 100Google Scholar
  8. Dugan CF, Dugan DW Jr, Rubins N, Sabahi B (2008) Investor-State arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumberry P (2013) The fair and equitable treatment standard: a guide to NAFTA case law on Article 1105. Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumberry P (2014a) Denial of justice under NAFTA Article 1105: a review of 20 years of case law. ASA Bull 32(2):246–264Google Scholar
  11. Dumberry P (2014b) The prohibition against arbitrary conduct and the fair and equitable treatment standard under NAFTA Article 1105. J World Invest Trade 15:117–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumberry P (2014c) Moving the Goal Post! How Some NAFTA tribunals have challenged the FTC note of interpretation on the fair and equitable treatment standard under NAFTA Article 1105. World Arbitr Mediation Rev 8(2)Google Scholar
  13. Dumberry P (2014d) The protection of investors’ legitimate expectations and the fair and equitable treatment standard under NAFTA Article 1105. J Int Arbitr 31(1):47–74Google Scholar
  14. Dumberry P (2015) Drafting the fair and equitable treatment standard clause in the TPP and the RCEP: lessons learned from the NAFTA Article 1105 Experience. Transnl Dispute Manage 12(1)Google Scholar
  15. Dumberry P (2016a) The importation of the fair and equitable treatment standard through MFN clauses: an empirical study of BITs. ICSID Rev-Foreign Invest Law J 17:229–259Google Scholar
  16. Dumberry P (2016b) The formation and identification of rules of customary international law in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, p 104 ffGoogle Scholar
  17. Dumberry P (2016c) Shopping for a better deal: the use of MFN clauses to get ‘Better’ fair and equitable treatment protection. Arbitr Int:1–16Google Scholar
  18. Dumberry P (2016d) The importation of ‘Better’ fair and equitable treatment standard protection through MFN clauses: an analysis of NAFTA Article 1103. Transnl Dispute ManageGoogle Scholar
  19. Dumberry P (2017) Has the fair and equitable treatment standard become a rule of customary international law? J Int Dispute Settlement 8(1):155–178Google Scholar
  20. Dumberry P (2018) The ‘Minimum Standard of Treatment’ in international investment law: the fascinating story of the emergence, the decline and the recent resurrection of a concept. In: Pasquet L, Van der Ploeg KP, Castellanos Jankiewicz L (eds) International law and time: narratives and techniques: proceedings of the conference international law and time (Genève, Suisse, 2015). Springer, BaselGoogle Scholar
  21. Dupuy F, Dupuy PM (2015) What to expect from legitimate expectations? A critical appraisal and look into the future of the ‘Legitimate Expectations’ Doctrine in international investment law. In: Raouf MA, Leboulanger P, Ziadé NG (eds) Festschrift Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri: from the Arab World to the Globalization of International Law. Kluwer, pp 273–298Google Scholar
  22. Gantz DA (2003) The evolution of FTA investment provisions: from NAFTA to the United States - Chile Free Trade Agreement. Am Univ Law Rev 19(4):724–731Google Scholar
  23. Haeri H (2011) A tale of two standards: ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ and the minimum standard in international law. Arbitr Int 27:27Google Scholar
  24. Henckels C (2016) Protecting regulatory autonomy through greater precision in investment treaties: the TPP, CETA and TTIP. J Int Econ Law 19(1):27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jadeau F, Fabien G (2016) CETA’s definition of the fair and equitable treatment standard: toward a guided and constrained interpretation. Transnl Dispute Manage 13(1)Google Scholar
  26. Khalil M (1992) Treatment of foreign investment in BITs. ICSID Rev 8:339Google Scholar
  27. Kill T (2008) Don’t cross the streams: past and present overstatement of customary international law in connection with conventional fair and equitable treatment obligations. Mich Law Rev 106:853Google Scholar
  28. Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kriebaum U (2014) FET and expropriation in the (Invisible) EU Model BIT. J World Invest Trade 15:454–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kriebaum U (2016) FET and expropriation in the comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA). TDM 1Google Scholar
  31. Lévesque C (2006) Influences on the Canadian model FIPA and US model BIT: NAFTA Chapter 11 and beyond. Canadian Yearb Int Law, 44Google Scholar
  32. Lévesque C (2010) Chronique de Droit international économique en 2010–2011 – investissement. Can Yearb Int Law 48:311–313Google Scholar
  33. Lévesque C, Newcombe A (2013) Commentary on the Canadian model foreign promotion and protection agreement. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Kluwer, pp 263–264Google Scholar
  35. Paparinskis M (2013) The international minimum standard and fair and equitable treatment. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Picherack JR (2008) The expanding scope of the fair and equitable treatment standard: have recent tribunals gone too far? J World Invest Trade 9(4):255Google Scholar
  37. Schacherer S (2016) TPP, CETA and TTIP between innovation and consolidation—resolving investor–state disputes under mega-regionals. J Int Dispute Settlement 7:628–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schill S (2007) Fair and equitable treatment as an embodiment of the rule of law. In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking Stock after 40 years. NomosGoogle Scholar
  39. Schill S (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press, p 271Google Scholar
  40. Schreuer C, Dolzer R (2008) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 126Google Scholar
  41. Stone J (2012) Arbitrariness, the fair and equitable treatment standard and the international law of investment. Leiden J Int Law 25(1):106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tudor I (2008) The fair and equitable treatment standard in international foreign investment law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment (2012) UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  44. Ünüvar G (2017a) The Vague Meaning of Fair and Equitable Treatment Principle in Investment Arbitration and New Generation Clarifications, iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 55(2), 22 (also in: Joanna Jemielniak, Anne Lise Kjær (eds), Legal Interpretation in the Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar
  45. Ünüvar G (2017b) Is CETA the promised breakthrough? Interpretation and evolution of fair and equitable treatment and indirect expropriation provisions. In: Andenas M, Pantaleo L (eds) The EU as an actor in international economic law. TMC Asser PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Harten G (2016) ISDS in the revised CETA: positive steps, but is it a ‘Gold Standard’?, CIGI Investor-State Arbitration Commentary Series No. 6Google Scholar
  47. Van Harten G (2017) The EU-Canada joint interpretive declaration/instrument on the CETA. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 6/2017Google Scholar
  48. Vandevelde KJ (2009) A comparison of the 2004 and 1994 US Model BITs (2008–2009). Yearb Int Invest Law Policy, 1Google Scholar
  49. Vandevelde KJ (2010) A unified theory of fair and equitable treatment. N Y Univ J Int Law Policy, 43Google Scholar
  50. VanDuzer JA (2016) Investor-state dispute settlement in CETA: is it the gold standard? C.D. Howe Institute Commentary No. 459; Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2016-44Google Scholar
  51. Villanueva GC (2008) The fair and equitable treatment standard: the Mexican experience. VDM VerlagGoogle Scholar
  52. Weiler T (2013) The interpretation of international investment law: equality, discrimination and minimum standards of treatment in historical context. Martinus NijhoffGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law (Civil Law Section)OttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations