1.) Globally, foreign direct investment is still expanding dramatically.

However, it's possible

that many of the multinational corporations funding those projects are unaware of the
significant legal safeguards provided by the network of more than 2800 international
agreements known as bilateral investment treaties, or BITs. One or more investment
treaties have been signed by more than 150 nations. In addition to requiring host nations
to offer specific safeguards for foreign investments, BITs give investors a strong private
right of action against the host government in the event that it fails to uphold its end of
the bargain.

Governments have vigorously negotiated hundreds and hundreds of BITs during the last 20
years. Capital exporting nations view Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) as a means of
safeguarding their corporations' overseas investments and promoting the adoption of market-
oriented, home policies that equitably handle private investment abroad. Countries that import
capital anticipate that offering BIT protections will reassure and attract international investors.

According to BITs, international businesses have the right to the same treatment as both other
international businesses and their domestic rivals. With the exception of a few, carefully outlined
exclusions stated in treaty annexes or protocols, foreign investors are entitled to the most favored
nation (MFN) or better of national treatment. This promise against discrimination in U.S.-
sponsored bilateral investment treaties (BITs) is applicable during the initial ("establishment")
phase as well as during the duration of the investment. Numerous non-US BITs are merely "post-
establishment" (i.e., they only guarantee national and MFN treatment after an investment is
made).
BITs give foreign investors the right to pursue compensation and set forth explicit restrictions on
the expropriation of capital. Only in compliance with the norms of international law—that is, for
a public purpose—may expropriation take place.

Resolution of Disputes

As previously mentioned, BITs grant investors a private right of action, or the ability to take an
investment dispute directly to international arbitration with the host government.
The provisions of the applicable treaty and international law shall govern disputes under BITs,
rather than the laws mentioned in investment contracts.
The government's record of adhering to BIT awards is excellent. The 144 nations that have
ratified the New York Convention on the recognition and execution of foreign arbitral rulings
allow investor-state arbitration tribunal awards to be enforced there, if needed.

BITs have been criticized for a number of reasons despite their advantages. BITs, according to
some detractors, offer foreign investors excessive influence and restrict host nations' ability to
govern for the public good. There are many who contend that investors can utilize BITs to
oppose legal public laws, like rules pertaining to the environment and health. A further criticism
of BITs is that they might be expensive for host nations because they might have to reimburse
investors in the case of an expropriation or other conflict.
In general, BITs are a significant compone1nt of international investment law since they offer
investors and host governments legal protection as well as a framework for resolving conflicts.
BITs are often more advantageous than they are disadvantageous, notwithstanding some
criticism. BITs safeguard the rights of host nations to govern in the public interest while
simultaneously fostering foreign investment, economic growth, and investor trust. Because of
this, BITs are probably going to be a crucial instrument for encouraging foreign investment and
economic expansion.

2.)

Over the past century, global collaboration concerning intellectual property rights (IPR) protection
has gradually moved from the purview of international intellectual property treaties (such as the
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Paris Convention for
the Protection of Industrial Property) to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and
from WIPO to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and WTO. After the WTO-
TRIPS Agreement, intellectual property rights (IPRs) were incorporated into the global trading
framework of the WTO. Trade secrets, integrated circuit industrial designs, patents, copyrights,
trademarks, and trade secrets are all protected under TRIPS regulations. Additionally, TRIPS
provide minimal levels of protection, which serve as a floor rather than a ceiling for sufficient
intellectual property rights protection.

Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement states that each member must provide its own nationals with
the same level of protection for their intellectual property as it does for those of other members,
subject to the exclusions already outlined in the Rome Convention, the Paris Convention, the Berne
Convention, and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. Regarding
performers, phonogram manufacturers, and broadcasting organizations, this obligation is limited
to the rights granted by this Agreement. Any Member utilizing the options specified in paragraph
1(b) of Article 16 of the Rome Convention or Article 6 of the Berne Convention (1971)

Put another way, arbitral courts must evaluate the legitimacy and extent of IP investment based
on national laws before moving on to the significant analysis. To put it another way, a dispute
does not automatically fall under the purview of the ICSID Convention just because it involves
investment (IP as investment). National laws must be consulted prior to using the Salini test to
evaluate intellectual property as an investment. Given that IPRs are territorial, this is especially
pertinent in their case. This implies that national laws serve as the basis for rights and

1
Dolzer, R., & Schreuer, C. (2008). Principles of International Investment Law. In Oxford
obligations. Stated differently, only intellectual property rights that are “protected” by a national
framework ought to be regarded as investments. As a result, the examination of IP as a protected

In the case of Philip Morris v. Uruguay, the tobacco company argued that the country's tobacco
packaging regulations violated FET and amounted to trademark expropriation.
The panel recognized the state's authority to regulate for public health and upheld Uruguay's
regulations.
Eli Lilly v. Canada According to Eli Lilly, rulings by Canadian courts invalidating its patents
were in violation of the FET and expropriation clauses of the NAFTA. The panel rejected the
claim, highlighting the importance of national courts and legal norms for determining the validity
of patents.
In conclusion, there is a significant overlap between IPR conflicts and the substantive protection
of rights under IIAs, encompassing norms of treatment, expropriation safeguards, definitions of
investment, and dispute resolution procedures. Although IIAs offer strong safeguards for
intellectual property as investments, they also give nations the ability to regulate in the public
interest, which makes the area of international investment law active and occasionally
contentious.

3.)
The role that multinational corporations (MNCs) play in economic development is one of the most
contentious topics in today's development debates.
MNCs can, on the one hand, aid emerging economies in modernizing their industries and
economies by bringing technology, know-how, and skills to the table; opening up export markets;
boosting competition; or supplying superior and/or more affordable goods and services than those
produced locally.
International law does not inherently prohibit expropriation. The fact that a State has the authority
and legal right to expropriate the property of both citizens and foreigners has always been
undeniable. However, there are restrictions on the legal expropriation of property held by
foreigners. These requirements are sometimes known as the public interest, nondiscrimination, due
process of law, and timely, sufficient, and efficient recompense.

It follows from clauses like this one that the determination of whether a measure is expropriatory
or not can never be based only on its nondi2scriminatory nature and public interest. There are
completely legal situations in which an expropriation may occur.
Expropriation does not include arbitrary actions, dishonest behavior, a lack of proportionality, or

2
Dolzer, R., & Schreuer, C. (2008b). Principles of International Investment Law.
other irregularities. It does not follow that an expropriation could not have occurred in their
absence.
Multinational corporations (MNCs) may be greatly impacted by the nationalization of an industry,
and expropriation concerns may arise.When a government nationalizes a business, it effectively
seizes control of the assets that multinational corporations (MNCs) had previously held in that
industry. Mines, factories, infrastructure, and intellectual property can all fall under this
category.activities Disrupted: In the impacted industry, nationalization may cause MNCs' activities
to be disrupted.

This may result in:

Stoppages in Production: Production may be severely curtailed or cease entirely if the

government seizes control of vital resources.

Supply Chain Problems: Nationalization may cause disturbances in well-established supply

chains, affecting the MNC as well as its suppliers and clients.

Loss of Market Access: The MNC may encounter new limitations on conducting business in a
valuable market or lose all access to it.

Reputational Damage: A badly executed nationalization can harm the host nation's standing and
reduce its appeal to international investors in the future.

Concerns

Expropriation, in which the government appropriates private property without providing just
recompense, is a danger that may arise from nationalization. The summary is as follows:

Direct Expropriation: When the government seizes assets belonging to multinational corporations
without providing just compensation, it is referred to as direct expropriation. This can result in
legal issues and violates the rules of international investment law.
Indirect Expropriation: The amount of compensation provided by the government may not be
sufficient, even if it is offered. Furthermore, even in cases when there isn't a formal seizure,
nationalization can be implemented in a way that essentially eliminates the value of an investment.
Indirect expropriation is a more complicated legal topic in international investment law, and this
falls under that category.

For multinational corporations, nationalizing an industry might be a dangerous move overall.

Governments are free to control their economy, but they must do it in a way that upholds
international law and keeps property from being taken from its rightful owners.