Nowadays, the inclusion of the standards of "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security" as two behavioral norms has become a consistent pattern in the vast majority of investment treaties. The frequent reference to these two standards in investment treaties, on the one hand, and their sequential and paired appearance, on the other, raises the question of whether there is a specific relationship between them or whether they are entirely distinct and independent. Arbitration practice on this matter does not reflect a uniform approach. Some arbitral awards consider these two standards—particularly when they appear consecutively in a single provision of an investment treaty—to be identical and equivalent. Some arbitral tribunals, rejecting the approach of equating the two standards, acknowledge a certain (though not complete) overlap between them. Many others, however, regard them as entirely distinct and independent, each possessing its own concept, content, and legal consequences, and therefore requiring separate analysis.
In this article, which adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology and relies on library resources, including books and arbitral awards in the field of foreign investment, we conclude that these two standards are entirely distinct and independent of each other. Consequently, a foreign investor seeking to prove a violation of either standard must present their claim in light of the specific content, legal effects, and scope of each standard.