Governments around the world are tightening FDI controls to protect national sovereignty, public order, and strategic industries. While these mechanisms serve a preventive and targeted role, they are not blanket restrictions on foreign capital. The global expansion of these regimes - spurred by geopolitical tensions, the COVID-19 crisis, and growing scrutiny of Chinese investments - has broadened the sectors subject to review, especially in critical infrastructure and technology. In France, FDI screening is guided by specific legal thresholds and can result in unconditional approval, conditional approval, or outright denial. Investors may appeal these decisions before administrative courts, though concerns persist about impartiality given the courts' ties to the state.

A new legal frontier is emerging as rejected investors increasingly turn to international arbitration to challenge FDI screening decisions. This raises critical questions about the extent to which such decisions can be reviewed by international tribunals. The Global Telecom v. Canada or the ongoing Huawei v. Sweden case at ICSID are key examples - testing whether a state's denial of market access on national security grounds can be arbitrated. If deemed arbitrable, this could open the door to a wave of disputes questioning national security justifications for rejecting FDI.

While these cases remain procedurally grounded in established arbitration rules, the issue of jurisdiction - whether investment treaty protections extend to the initial admission phase - is still unsettled. Some treaties explicitly exclude it; others are more ambiguous. Arbitrators may uphold state discretion, but also assess whether that discretion was exercised fairly and consistently with international norms. These developments suggest a possible shift in the balance of power between host states and foreign investors, especially as geopolitical and economic rivalries deepen.