This article explores the obstacles that may exist for states to bring counterclaims before an investment treaty tribunal and analyses the reasoning of the tribunals that have have refused to hear such counterclaims. In relation to the key question of jurisdiction, the ICSID Convention and the UNCITRAL Rules both provide in principle for counterclaims. The question thus often becomes one of consent and whether an investor-state dispute resolution provision in a BIT encompasses counterclaims – an issue that always requires careful consideration of the treaty language. The investor’s consent is also discussed as well as the law applicable to such counterclaims. In order for counterclaims to be admissible they must be connected to the primary claims, but the nature of such a connection is not self-evident. The article concludes that the test established in the May 2004 decision in Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic was too strict, and leads to it being near-impossible for states to succeed in having their counterclaims heard, which is regrettable.