Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investor-State Dispute Resolution: Nigeria’s Treaty Practice and Policy Implications

Nigeria has concluded a network of bilateral investment treaties with over 30 countries, committing to investor protection standards including fair and equitable treatment, national treatment, and access to international arbitration for investment disputes. As Nigeria's economic policy evolves and state capacity for large infrastructure contracts expands, the professional implications of BIT obligations for regulatory sovereignty, host state liability, and investor-state dispute resolution require systematic assessment. This study professionally analyses Nigeria's bilateral investment treaty practice, examining the substantive standards in selected BITs, investor-state dispute cases involving Nigeria at ICSID and UNCITRAL, and the policy balance between investor protection and the state's right to regulate in the public interest. A doctrinal methodology is applied, reviewing selected BITs including the Nigeria-UK BIT, the Nigeria-Germany BIT, the Nigeria-China Investment Agreement, ICSID case records involving Nigeria, and Nigeria's National Investment Promotion and Protection Act. The study evaluates fair and equitable treatment clause interpretations and the scope of indirect expropriation claims under the Nigerian BIT network. Available investment law literature from Nigeria identifies fair and equitable treatment claims arising from regulatory changes in the petroleum sector and banking industry as the most professionally significant Nigerian BIT exposure areas. The Regulatory Chill Theory and the Proportionality Standard in Investment Treaty Law provide the analytical framework. Recommendations address BIT renegotiation strategy and a national investment treaty model clause. Keywords: bilateral investment treaties, investor-state arbitration, ICSID, regulatory sovereignty, Nigeria.