This article provides the first empirical survey since the 2012 UNCTAD Report of how tribunals have addressed a specific type of Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) clause: stand-alone clauses containing no reference to international law or any other standard. The vast majority of awards did not take a position on the issue of whether that standard offers the same or different level of protection compared to the Minimum Standard of Treatment (MST) under custom. Yet, those that did have overwhelmingly concluded that the clause must be interpreted to have an autonomous character, not related to the MST. These tribunals have also given broad interpretation of the scope and content of the clause which, in turn, had an impact on how they have addressed matters of liability and compensation. The success rate of FET claims is higher for tribunals which have expressly stated that a stand-alone FET clause has an ‘autonomous’ character compared to others which did not take a position on this question (two-thirds versus 50%). Notably, the overall success rate of FET claims under a stand-alone clause (50%) is much higher compared to that of awards examining FET clauses where the standard is expressly linked to the MST.