© 2022 IJRAR March 2022, Volume 9, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138) IJRAR22A2679 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 361 FULL PROTECTION OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT MONALISA CHANDRA 1. INTRODUCTION In contrast with its more notorious counterpart, the fair and equitable treatment clause, the full security standard has maintained a small footprint in international investment legislation networks. This is notwithstanding the growing number of foreign investment treaties that provide the requirement of defence and security, sometimes in the same clause as the promise of fair and equitable treatment. Indeed, in the early 1990s, Ibrahim Shihata, Deputy Vice-President and Chief operating officer of the World Bank, and Antonio Parra, Legal Consultant to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, were revealed to examine that there had been "no case law" on full protection and security standards. However, both anticipated that "in hypothetical proceedings, adjudicators will certainly have the duty of any further trying to clarify this and many other parameters of international law." In the light of the various recent incidents concerning this clause, in specific those who interpret the provision to go against safety and protection, Shihata and Parra have proved themselves to be accurate. The analysis finds that, although there were just six leading nominations for such a norm between 1990 and 2004, there have been 24 similar awards during 2004 and 2009, and many more are scheduled to appear (Commission, 2009). At least 40 reported investment treaty awards are deemed to be a protection and security standard. The latest political disturbances in the Islamic nation, in Libya and Egypt in particular, should be a productive forum for more arguments. These are positive news among shareholders who reveal the new era of the protection and security standard while it becomes a swan of a modest duckling. It could be no fictional story for nations, on the other side, but more strongly linked to the development of a Frankenstein which is restrictive. Especially significant are the risks for developed countries accounting for breaches of treaty obligations. The apparently definite and straightforward arrangement to guarantee maximum security and safety for investments will put on States with minimal capital a burdensome degree of liability. Investment treaties produce and have been adopted by the tribunals on a face-value basis the guarantee of full protection and security and, thus, understand the