Today, international investment law arbitrations include claims for two broad categories of state responsibility: nondiscrimination and fair and equitable treatment. It is these two categories of treatment owed by states to investors to which this article is devoted. A recent bilateral investment treaty award, Saluka v Czech Republic, may be demonstrative of this trend. Saluka was a classical non-discrimination award that was not based upon a non-discrimination provision, such as national treatment, because one was missing from the treaty. The tribunal based its findings for the successful claimant upon the treaty's minimum standard of treatment provision instead. The goal of this article is merely to note that, as a matter of doctrine, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern any difference between the ways in which non-discrimination and minimum standard provisions are actually being interpreted and applied.