Under normal circumstances, bilateral investment treaties (BIT) are designed to promote the mutual enhancement of investment climate and to guarantee that foreign investors are treated no worse than investors of host and third States. In many respects, maintaining such relations is believed to reflect economic globalization and the increasingly widespread acceptance of such legal standards as non-discrimination and of striking a balance between national and private foreign interests. Practice shows, however, that the equilibrium of an investment treaty regime can sometimes be disturbed by a chain of actions governed by a field of law with a purpose of a completely different nature, such as the law of armed conflict. Such an interaction can be observed in relations between Russia and certain Ukrainian investors. Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, a number of investors, some of whose assets were based in Crimea, commenced investment arbitration proceedings in an attempt to recover some of their rights and interests. This article examines the jurisdictional practice of these arbitral tribunals, along with a critical analysis of the relevant provisions of the Ukraine-Russia BIT, as well as other norms of international law operative in relations developed.