The latest round of agreements sees India signing BITs with the United Arab Emirates (2024), Israel (2025) and Uzbekistan (2024), alongside FTAs with New Zealand (April 2026), the United Kingdom (July 2025), the European Free Trade Association (March 2024) and Oman (December 2025).
India already possesses a statutory foundation for dispute resolution: the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 governs domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
A notable feature of the recent FTAs is the deliberate omission of investor‑state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. Analysts suggest that future FTAs could include pre‑ambular language explaining that the absence of ISDS is offset by the availability of robust commercial arbitration remedies under Indian law.
By contrast, India’s BITs retain ISDS provisions but often carve out contractual disputes. For example, the India‑Uzbekistan BIT excludes “disputes arising solely from an alleged breach of a contract” from ISDS and requires investors to exhaust local remedies before invoking treaty arbitration, a requirement that currently steers claims away from Indian commercial arbitration tribunals.
The government’s policy of prohibiting third‑party funding in ISDS cases does not automatically extend to commercial arbitration. Clarifying this distinction in upcoming treaties could allow India to develop a coherent framework for third‑party funding in commercial arbitration, aligning with global best practices.
Together, these treaty adjustments are seen as essential for India’s ambition to become a global arbitration hub, offering investors confidence that any commercial dispute will be resolved through a predictable, enforceable and trusted arbitration system.