The constant exchange of investment assets poses a risk of ‘commoditisation’ of investment treaty claims. Nevertheless, both traditional and modern investment treaties contain sufficient safeguards against attempts by host State ‘insiders’ and third State ‘intruders’ to create artificial access to arbitration. First, the definition of ‘investment’ can filter genuine investments from bare acquisition of assets (ratione materiae). Second, the textual linkage between ‘investor’ and ‘investment’ strongly implies that ‘active contribution’ in the investment is required from assignees to qualify for protection (ratione personae). Third, the doctrine of abuse of rights prevents treaty shopping and internationalisation of domestic disputes (ratione temporis).

投资资产的不断交换带来了投资条约要求“商品化”的风险。尽管如此，传统和现代投资条约都包含足够的保障措施，防止东道国“内部人”和第三国“入侵者”企图人为地提供仲裁。首先，“投资”的定义可以从裸购资产（属事理由）中过滤掉真正的投资。其次，“投资者”和“投资”之间的文本联系强烈暗示，受让人需要对投资进行“积极贡献”才能有资格获得保护（属人管辖权）。第三，滥用权利原则阻止了国内争端的条约选择和国际化（属时理由）。