The paper analyzes systematic patterns of investment treaty rule-making using a large sample of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Focusing on national treatment and transfer provisions, it finds that BITs signed between two developing countries are typically less wide-ranging than North-South BITs. Yet restrictions in South-South BITs are ‘levelled out’ by the treaties’ most-favoured-nation provisions leading to a de‐facto coherence in developing countries’ BIT‐networks. The paper concludes by speculating whether this paradoxical pattern might have been unintended on the part of developing country negotiators.
- bilateral investment treaties,
- developing countries