This research seeks to address the question of why arbitral tribunals have interpreted treaties concluded by the United States as taking a pragmatic approach to the invocation of the denial of benefits clauses they contain. Thus, our hypothesis states that various of the arbitral tribunals that have interpreted these treaties adopting a pragmatic approach have interpreted these clauses following various methods of interpretation, among which (i) the literal method, (ii) the teleological method, and (iii) the functional method of interpretation are predominant. In this sense, the main objective of the research will be to identify the main grounds used by the arbitral tribunals when analyzing the moment of invocation of these clauses in this type of treaties. To this end, the methodology used is qualitative in nature and seeks to be mainly analytical of existing jurisprudence. The aim is t...

International Investment Law nowadays is characterized by fragmentation. This is mainly due to the different protection standards that States grant to foreign investors, as well as arbitration decisions in this regard. Although each protection standard must be analyzed in each specific case, international doctrine and Tribunals have recognized the existence of certain classic protection standards such as the Most-Favored-Nation Clauses or the so-called Umbrella Clauses. In this article, the authors seek to analyze the way in which these two protection standards usually operate and the possibility of invoking the benefits of the Umbrella Clause through the application of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause, according to what has been resolved by the international jurisprudence on the matter.

International Investment Law nowadays is characterized by fragmentation. This is mainly due to the different protection standards that States grant to foreign investors, as well as arbitration decisions in this regard. Although each protection standard must be analyzed in each specific case, international doctrine and Tribunals have recognized the existence of certain classic protection standards such as the Most-Favored-Nation Clauses or the so-called Umbrella Clauses. In this article, the authors seek to analyze the way in which these two protection standards usually operate and the possibility of invoking the benefits of the Umbrella Clause through the application of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause, according to what has been resolved by the international jurisprudence on the matter.

International Investment Law nowadays is characterized by fragmentation. This is mainly due to the different protection standards that States grant to foreign investors, as well as arbitration decisions in this regard. Although each protection standard must be analyzed in each specific case, international doctrine and Tribunals have recognized the existence of certain classic protection standards such as the Most-Favored-Nation Clauses or the so-called Umbrella Clauses. In this article, the authors seek to analyze the way in which these two protection standards usually operate and the possibility of invoking the benefits of the Umbrella Clause through the application of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause, according to what has been resolved by the international jurisprudence on the matter.