On July 31, Robert Mugabe won another five year term as Zimbabwe’s President.

The 89-year-old, even at his advanced age, shows no signs of slowing down after more than three decades of rule. When asked if he plans to stand for election again in five years by New York Times reporter Lydia Polgreen, Mugabe responded “Why do you want to know my secrets?”

Mugabe’s re-election and uncertainty regarding his future leave the notoriously anti-Western and anti-foreign investment atmosphere of Zimbabwe in place for at least five more years, perhaps longer.

One of Mugabe’s most infamous programs is the extensive indigenization push that has been present in various arenas since he first ascended to power. The newest edition of the program was signed into law in 2010 and is meant to reclaim or establish the indigenous population’s place in the country’s major industries.

Specifically, it requires foreign-owned businesses to give at least 51 percent ownership to Zimbabwe’s black citizens. While some industries will be compensated, mining companies forced to cede over half their shares must do so without compensation.

When asked about this, Mugabe’s spokesman stated of one South African platinum mining company, “Our contribution is the platinum that they are taking from our soil. They will get nothing more.” Estimates put the amount of potential seized assets at $7 billion.

There is little doubt that such seizures constitute a taking or expropriation under international law where it is only required that the government take effective control of an item or business in order for an expropriation to have taken place.

This indigenization program comes nearly a decade after a fast-track land reform program that led to the ouster of nearly all of the country’s 4,000 white farmers and the transfer of their land to about a million black Zimbabweans.

Mugabe went well beyond standard expropriation, advocating for the takeover of white-owned farms. As a consequence of these land seizures, a group of Dutch investors successfully filed for arbitration against Zimbabwe at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe. The body determined that the massive land reforms amounted to an uncompensated expropriation and demanded that Zimbabwe provide the Dutch investors with “just compensation” under the language of Zimbabwe’s Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands.

While Zimbabwe may be the most brutal sub-Saharan state to pursue such indigenization policies, it is by no means the only one. South Africa, the region’s biggest economy, has run afoul of international investors over black empowerment policies, meant to similarly bring the country’s biggest industries under local, black African control.

In a famous (for other reasons) arbitration, Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v. the Republic of South Africa, ICSID was asked to determine whether or not these policies equated to expropriation under international law. The case would eventually settle without the body reaching the merits.

The reason such arbitrations are troubling for investors is the novel position in international law that special measures to alleviate past discrimination hold. Special alleviation measures are specifically called for in many of international human rights law’s foundational documents and arbitral bodies have increasingly begun to view factors other than mere contract and investment relationships when issuing rulings. This has led some analysts to call for greater flexibility for developing states in expropriation proceedings. This trend could eventually lead to more unpredictable arbitral awards.

Zimbabwe is a troubled country. Massive unemployment, hunger pangs and rampant human rights violations persist in a country once believed to have an extremely promising future. In addition to these problems, the rule of law is nonexistent. The lack of respect for the rule of law translates to an equally troubled business environment. The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings put Zimbabwe at 172 out of 185 ranked countries in 2013. This number is down two spots from 2012 and will surely continue to drop if indigenization continues to ramp up.

The lack of respect for the rule of law leaves investors with precious few domestic options for compensation in the event of expropriation. This does not, however, leave investors wholly without options.

Zimbabwe is party to a number of bilateral investment treaties that leave the wronged investor international arbitration options for dispute resolution. Such treaties include include China, Denmark, Germany, Serbia, Switzerland and the Netherlands, with several others signed but not ratified. This generally allows investors from these states to take Zimbabwe to arbitration, either at ICSID or at an ad hoc tribunal set up under the rules of the U.N. Commission on International Trade Law . Depending on the language of the individual treaty, remedy may be available at other international bodies as well.

While the Funnekotter arbitration should give some hope to potential investors in Zimbabwe from countries where treaties are present, the proceedings were brought in 2005 and were not concluded until 2009.

Additionally, each side was forced to pay its own legal fees. Similar confusion and frustration can be found for other dispute settlement bodies in which farmers with seized land were eventually awarded compensation.

In an unpredictable situation such as currently exists, while a treaty and arbitration may eventually lead to just compensation, considerable time and expense may be required to receive payment and the legal trend is only towards greater unpredictability.

Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.