It has been established that friendshoring generates legal risks stemming from the conflict between geopolitically motivated restrictions and state obligations under bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The study reveals that the lack of a unified approach to dispute resolution exacerbates investor vulnerability, particularly in cases of indirect expropriation and discriminatory measures justified by national security concerns. The research concludes that friendshoring contradicts the principle of non-discrimination in international economic law, thereby undermining investment climate stability. Through case analyses (Rosneft v. Germany, EU sanctions against Russian assets, restrictions on Huawei in Australia, Tatneft v. Ukraine), the paper demonstrates a growing trend of expansive interpretations of “national security” and “public interest” as tools to circumvent BIT obligations. The study recommends enhancing precautionary measures for both investors and states to mitigate these risks.

friendshoring, international investment law, geopolitical discrimination, bilateral investment treaties, indirect expropriation, national security, public interest, investment arbitration

Protasevich Fedor Aleksandrovich – Student, Law Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (PFUR) (6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation), ORCID: 0009-0004-7468-5003, e-mail: 1032213130@pfur.ru

Protasevich F. A. Frendshoring kak vyzov mezhdunarodnomu investicionnomu i ekonomicheskomu pravu: ot dogovorov k geopoliticheskoj diskriminacii [Friendshoring as a challenge to international investment and economic law: from treaties to geopolitical discrimination] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2025, no 2(109), pp. 145–151. – DOI 10.26516/2071-8136.2025.2.145 (in Russian)

341.1

1. Pashchenko E.G., Silkin V.V. Mezhdunarodnoe strakhovanie investitsii ot politicheskikh riskov [International Insurance of Investments Against Political Risks]. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law], 1999, no. 3, pp. 76-93. (in Russian)

2. Bennett Moses L., Churches G., Parker N. Submission to the Review of Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. UNSW Law Research Paper, 2019, no. 20-5, 6 p.

3. Cox J.S. Canada and the Five Eyes Intelligence Community. Calgary, Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute Publ., 2013, 13 p.

4. Cuomo A., Nicolaides P. The European Banking Union Also Means Cross-Border Bank Consolidation: EU Law as a Bulwark Against National Political Interference in the UniCredit-Commerzbank Tie-Up. Verfassungsblog, 2024, pp. 1–5. URL: https://verfassungsblog.de/banking-union-cross-border-consolidation/. DOI: 10.59704/6768ee0c747d0599 (date of access: 15.05.2025)

5. Jones D.M., Ungerer C. Australia. PSI Handbook of Global Security Intelligence: National Approaches : in 2 vols. ed. by S. Farson, P. Gill, M. Phythian, Sh. Shapiro. Westport, London, Praeger Security International, 2008, vol. 1, 170 p.

6. Lee J.Y., Han E., Zhu K. Decoupling from China: How US Asian Allies Responded to the Huawei Ban. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2022, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 486-506.

7. Maihold G. A new geopolitics of supply chains: the rise of friend-shoring. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), 2022. URL: https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/swpcom/452022.html. doi:10.18449/2022C45 (date of access: 15.05.2025).