While ‘regulatory stability’ regularly features in the decisions of investment arbitral tribunals interpreting the fair and equitable treatment (FET) provision, the extent to which the FET standard disciplines ‘adverse regulatory change’ in the absence of an express stabilization commitment from the host State is far from clear. Based on the conceptual distinction between the requirement of ‘strict’ v ‘soft’ regulatory stability, the paper aims to show the way investment treaty tribunals have applied the FET provision in cases of host States’ regulatory change. The paper argues that, despite the fact that investment tribunals have increasingly recognized the need to find a better balance between protecting foreign investors from adverse regulatory changes and the right of host States to regulate in the public interest, several recent arbitral tribunals still fail to clearly set out the role of regulatory stability within the FET standard, thus failing to assuage the fears that investment treaties may indeed function as imposing excessive restraints on host States' right to regulate.

中文翻译：

---

公平公正待遇标准中监管稳定的义务：我们走了多远？

虽然“监管稳定性”经常出现在投资仲裁庭解释公平和公正待遇 (FET) 条款的决定中，但在没有明确规定的情况下，FET 标准对“不利监管变化”的约束程度东道国的稳定承诺远未明确。基于“严格”与“软”监管稳定性要求之间的概念区别，本文旨在展示投资条约法庭在东道国监管变化的情况下应用 FET 条款的方式。该文件认为，尽管投资法庭越来越认识到需要在保护外国投资者免受不利监管变化与东道国为公共利益进行监管的权利之间找到更好的平衡，