The New BIT: Is It a Game of Equals?

  • Anjali TandonEmail author
  • Geethanjali Nataraj


Swamped by the claims brought by foreign investors against India, the government was forced to rethink its investment treaty obligations. The nature of settlement had turned more commercial with most of the earlier disputes settled through non-pecuniary reliefs; in contrast to the most recent settlements through an awarded compensation. The disputes and the order of claims has been far more as raised by the foreign investing partners on India, in comparison to when the Indian investor has sued a partner abroad. The design of India’s new Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), 2015 has been marked with multiple changes. These include shifting the negotiating authority to Ministry of Finance, definitional changes, inclusions and exclusions. The new BIT attempts to match the need of the times through more explicit features. It is obvious that the new BIT model is biased towards safeguarding India’s interests and has raised scepticism with India’s partners. By the way of revised model BIT, India makes it clear that it wishes to be the rule-maker rather than rule-taker in rewriting the rules of bilateral investment treaties.


  1. Allen and Overy. (2016). Indian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. Available at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  2. Desai, N., Associates, (2015). Bite of the BIT—The Steady Rise of Bilateral Investment Treaties and a Pro-investor Regime in the Global Economy. Available at: Last accessed October 16, 2018.
  3. European Commission. (2016). Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Accessed at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  4. Kaszubska, K. (2016). Making BITs Less Biting: India’s Reform of the Investment Regime. ORF Occasional Paper. Available at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  5. Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. (2009). India-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Available at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  6. Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (2015). India’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Text. Available at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  7. Nataraj, G. (2016). Will New BIT Help Promote India’s FDI? Here’s Why Investments May Get Affected. Financial Express, October 28. Available at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  8. Nataraj, G., & Tandon A. (2018). India’s new bilateral investment treaty: Expansions, inclusions and exclusions. In: R. Kanungo, C. Rowley, & A. Banerjee (Eds.), Changing the Indian Economy—Renewal, Reform and Revival. UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Ranjan, P. (2016). India Seeks Protection with New Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. The Wire, February 26. Available at: Last accessed April 3, 2017.
  10. Ranjan, P., & Anand, P. (2016). More than a BIT of Protectionism. The Hindu, December, 14. Available at:
  11. Schreuer, C. (2010). Full protection and security. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 1–17. Scholar
  12. Singh, K. (2016). An analysis of India’s new model bilateral investment treaty. In: K. Singh, B. Ilge (Eds.), Rethinking Bilateral Investment Treaties Critical Issues and Policy Choices. Jointly published by Both Ends, Madhyam and SOMO.Google Scholar
  13. UNCTAD. (2017). World Investment Report, Investment and the Digital Economy.Google Scholar
  14. UNCTAD. Investment Policy Hub. Accessed at:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Studies in Industrial DevelopmentNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of Public AdministrationNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations