In the 20th century, we witnessed multiple expropriations in the forms of nationalization, confiscation, or seizure of property. In the first half of the 20th century, the Government of the Soviet Union and its colonies made extensive confiscations, and in the west, the Mexican government nationalized its arable land and oil resources. The second half of the 20th century started with the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, and subsequently, in multiple cases, Asian and African states nationalized their resources. The investor countries, that were present in the countries rich in natural resources primarily through multinational companies, considered themselves the main victims of this exercise of sovereignty, and this became the basis for disputes between the parties. The investors turned to international arbitration to restore the rights that they thought they have lost. Therefore, we witness multiple approaches by the arbitrators concerning the exercise of the principle of permanent sovereignty of states over natural resources. By looking at the history of changes in this matter, we find that this issue has always been a place of constant fight or flight of the parties, and the arbitrators did not give up turning to all kinds of arguments and theories to protect the interests of each party, which resulted in the transformation or adjustment in existing standards, and therefore, led to the exercise of the principle of permanent sovereignty of governments over their natural resources.