The article looks at four recent decisions granting provisional measures requested by the Claimants in four investment arbitrations, namely the decisions of the ICSID tribunals in the City Oriente v. Ecuador and Petroecuador case, the Perenco vs. Ecuador and Petroecuador, Burlington v. Ecuador and Petroecuador case and the decisions in the SCC case of Sergei Paushok v. Mongolia. In describing these decisions the article looks at the tension between the State’s right to implement its monetary policy and the powers of an arbitral tribunal to impose restrictions to its enforcement via provisional measures pending the resolution of the dispute on its merits.