Abstract
This paper aims to provide a detailed reading of recent advances in Asian investment rule-making which provide the exogenous context in which the EU investment policy is deployed. As of April 2015, there are eight Asian partners with which the EU is negotiating new trade agreements, and this will reflect the recent changes in EU FDI competence. Indeed, the Treaty of Lisbon extended in 2009 the Common Commercial Policy to foreign direct investment. The shift from national to supranational level is a major legal development because the EU is likely to employ its significant bargaining power when negotiating IIAs to improve the said power. The output of the paper is a detailed analytical account of key dimensions of investment treaties in Asia and the potential consequences in future arbitration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Sachs (2005).
- 2.
If, globally speaking, international investment law and policy have developed in the mid-1990s, it was essentially in North America and Europe. The path-breaking North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, whose Chapter 11 (Investment) embedded a full set of investment rules within the ambit of a trade architecture for the very first time.
- 3.
Investors, however, are free to invest where they choose, and without legal instruments and mechanisms to protect investments abroad, investors may be reluctant to invest their resources in a foreign State. As a consequence of concerns in respect to differences in legal systems and differences in the levels of legal infrastructure, over the past 25 years in particular, states have concluded more than 2,850 BITS to regulate the treatment of foreign investors and investments and to provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host States.
- 4.
In terms of methodology, it is important to clarify that Asian countries are understood in this paper as being those States geographically located in the Asian region and which are also members of the Asian Development Bank. In total, 48 States belong to the Asian regional members category. Apart of North Korea, all states (regardless of their size, population and political regime) are considered in this study and their respective investment treaties are analysed.
- 5.
UNCTAD (2013), p. 110 http://unctad.org/diae.
- 6.
Eurostat, European Commission, April 2014. In Asia, the most important destinations for outward stocks of EU-27 FDI were Singapore; Hong Kong, China; and Japan. Together, they accounted for half of the EU-27’s positions in Asia in 2010. The relative importance of the PRC as a destination for EU-27 FDI has grown steadily in recent years, and outward FDI stocks in the PRC reached EUR75.1 billion by the end of 2010, which was higher than in the Republic of Korea, India, and Indonesia, which are the next largest partners. Virtually, all these EU FDI in Asia (and FDI currently made) will see their legal protection modified because of current negotiations.
- 7.
See also Chaisse (2012a), p. 462.
- 8.
The EU now holds exclusive competence over FDI, which is interpreted to include the classical standards of investment protection. However, the absence of a definition of FDI in the Treaty still leaves scope for disagreement. For further discussion, see Chaisse (2012b), p. 51.
- 9.
The “negotiation mandate” for EU FTAs with Canada, India, and Singapore was approved by the General Affairs Council on 12 September 2011. This confidential document confirms the trend that the EU will negotiate broad and encompassing FTAs to replace narrow and conventional BITs. Neither the 2008 Economic Partnership Agreement with the Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean, and Pacific (CARIFORUM) States, nor the 2010 signed agreement with the Republic of Korea addresses the core investment protection issues of minimum standards of treatment, expropriation, and compensation. Nor do they provide recourse to investor–State arbitration procedures. The latter outcome reflects the legal situation prior to December 2009 and the shared competency, or “mixed competence”, between Member States and the EU in matters of investment regulation.
- 10.
Cultural cooperation elements have to be included in EU trade agreements as a consequence of the UNESCO Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions which the EC and most of its Member States have ratified. The Convention foresees that countries have to promote cultural diversity and this should be also reflected in their international agreements and in the implementation of such international agreements. Without prejudice to the fact that UNESCO guidelines are being elaborated, the EU has drafted a model Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to be included in future trade agreements.
- 11.
It is not new, because, for instance, Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of “wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale”. But modern PTAs have developed this kind of TRIPs plus requirements and increase criminalisation of certain violations. See Lindstrom (2010), p. 917 (942–946).
- 12.
The protocol also seeks to encourage parties to cooperate in facilitating exchanges regarding cultural activities, notably in the area of performing arts, publications, protection of cultural heritage sites and historical monuments, as well as in the audiovisual sector. It also seeks to ensure a facilitated movement for artists and other cultural professionals and practitioners who are not service providers.
- 13.
The June 2012 leaked draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) investment chapter (which is largely unchanged as of May 2014) resembles in large measure the more recent US IIAs rather than the 1995 text of NAFTA Chapter 11. In a nutshell, the TPP investment chapter does not provide major innovations in treaty drafting. However, the TPP crystallises most recent innovations since 2001 concerning NAFTA-interpreting notes but also NAFTA case law. The normative quality of the TPP however places the agreement among the most detailed and important investment treaties. In this light, it is possible to return to the question raised in the introduction as to whether the TPP will strengthen or fracture current regimes. As this investment treaty is negotiated in the context of an agreement of great economic significance, doted (what does “doted” mean here?) of a broad MFN provision, if the TPP negotiations proceed successfully, then as a broad preferential trade agreement the TPP will presumably supersede NAFTA and other existing IIAs (where there is overlap). Interestingly, the TPP may be read as a strengthening or a de facto renegotiation of NAFTA and many other agreements such as the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (2010). The TPP is even more clearly a strengthening of investment disciplines for some developing countries such as Vietnam or Malaysia which have not so far been bound to the USA. Last but not least, the TPP membership is open to new members willing to sign up to its commitments under the sole condition that it is accepted by the current TPP members. The absence of geographic or economic conditions gives the TPP a significant attractiveness. Japan joined TPP negotiations in the summer of 2013. And the list of prospective member States is long, namely, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan ROC, Philippines, Laos, Colombia, and Costa Rica. Should all these countries join the TPP and ratify, among others, the investment chapter, there is no doubt that we will have an embryo of a long-awaited multilateral agreement on investment. Last but not least, some other investment treaties illustrate the regionalisation of investment regulation in Asia such as the ACIA, the ongoing negotiations for China-Korea-Japan or some Asian treaties with China and India.
- 14.
Prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the EU did not have the legal capacity to sign up to international agreements. Articles 216-218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly the EC Treaty) amend this, Treaty of Lisbon, [2008] OJ C 115/1. Before that, “European Union” was the official name. To facilitate the reading we use the name even when disputes occurred before 2009.
- 15.
As stated by the Commission, “a comprehensive common international investment policy needs to better address investor needs from the planning to the profit stage or from the pre- to the post-admission stage. Thus, our trade policy will seek to integrate investment liberalization and investment protection.”, European Commission (2010) Communication, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010)343 final, p. 5.
- 16.
In its 2010 communication, the Commission points out that the existing European BITs relate to the treatment of investors “post-entry” or “post-admission” only. This is perfectly true and implies that the Member States’ BITs provide no specific binding commitments regarding the conditions of entry, neither from third countries regarding outward investment by companies of our Member States, nor vice versa. But the European Commission observes that “[g]radually, the European Union has started filling the gap of entry or admission through both multilateral and bilateral agreements at the EU level covering investment market access and investment liberalization”, and illustrates this in a footnote because at the multilateral level the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provides for a framework for undertaking commitments on the supply of services through a commercial presence (defined as mode 3 in GATS Article I). At the bilateral level, the EU has concluded negotiations with the Republic of Korea on an FTA, which includes provisions on market access for investors and establishments.
- 17.
To review the Asian IIAs’ key investment provisions, I will address the key provisions (leaving for the last section the important issue of MFN) following the same methodology: what is the specific definition given in the TPP, what is the meaning and what lessons can be drawn from the IIAs’ orientations. The negotiators have to opt for either an admission clause or the pre-establishment rights, the definition of national treatment, the minimum standard of treatment, full protection and security and the indirect expropriation methodology. In another paper, these provisions have been analysed in the context of Asian IIAs. See Chaisse (2014a).
- 18.
The extent to which BITs actually attract increased flows of foreign direct investment is disputed. According to Salacuse & Sullivan, entering a BIT with the United States of America would nearly double a country’s FDI inflows. However, entering BITs with other OECD countries had no significant effect on FDI. See Salacuse and Sullivan (2005), p. 67 (105–111). Another important study concludes that there is “little evidence that BITs have stimulated additional investment”. Hallward-Driemeier (2003).
- 19.
On India, see in particular Chaisse (2014), p. 385.
- 20.
See Gugler and Chaisse (2009), p. 1.
- 21.
Inter alia, this was showcased at the Nice Summit (2000), where EU Member States agreed to amend Article 133 of the Treaty of Rome (which governs the Union’s common commercial policy) by extending EU competence to a number of “new” areas. In a few sensitive sectors such as audiovisual services (e.g., “l’exception culturelle”) and investment, EU Member States did not agree on handing over “shared” or “mixed” competence to the EC. With the ratification of the Treaty of Nice, investment was one of a few most sensitive issues that remained subject to the rules and procedures of inter-governmentalism, as opposed to the “community approach”. See Klamert and Maydell (2008), p. 493 (493–494).
- 22.
Baert (2003), p. 100 (116).
- 23.
In November 2006 the Council of the European Union adopted the “Minimum Platform on Investment” for EU PTAs with third countries, Council of the European Union, Minimum Platform on Investment, 15375/06, 27 November 2006 (not public). As explained at that time, the EU was already determined to expand its Common Commercial Policy powers to cover also investment issues. See Maydell (2008), pp. 204–206.
- 24.
This section partly draws from Chaisse (2014b), p. 75.
- 25.
A list of Asian PTAs is as follows: PTA New Zealand-Singapore, 1 January 2001; PTA Japan-Singapore, 30 November 2002; PTA China-Hong Kong, China, 29 June 2003; PTA Singapore-Australia, 28 July 2003; PTA Thailand-Australia, 1 January 2005; PTA India-Singapore, 1 August 2005; PTA Korea, Republic of-Singapore, 2 March, 2006; PTA Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, 28 May 2006; PTA Japan-Malaysia, 13 July 2006; PTA Pakistan-China, 1 July 2007; PTA Japan-Thailand, 1 November 2007; PTA Pakistan-Malaysia, 1 January 2008; PTA Brunei Darussalam-Japan, 31 July 2008 ; PTA China-New Zealand, 1 October 2008; PTA Japan-Indonesia, 1 July 2008; PTA Japan-Philippines, 11 December 2008; New Zealand-Malaysia, 1 August 2010; Hong Kong, China-New Zealand, 1 January 2011; Australia-New Zealand (ANZCERTA), 1 January 1989 (investment Protocol 2011); ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA), 1 March 2012.
- 26.
Following the policy of opening implemented by the PRC more than 30 years ago and the admission of the PRC into the World Trade Organization, the PRC is now concluding different generations of IIAs, the most recent granting full jurisdiction to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). See Willems (2011).
- 27.
For Japanese treaty practice, Hamamoto (2011), p. 53.
- 28.
“While the treaties continue to govern the same key aspect of investment, they have morphed over the 40 year period to include different types of clauses. We need to take into account the heterogeneity in order to better understand the motivations of states.”, Jandhyala et al. (2010), pp. 31–32. “While it should be recognized that a BIT could be an important commitment device, the nature of the commitment can vary enormously depending on the terms of the BIT. Too much attention has been placed on whether or not a BIT exists, than on the strength of the property rights actually being enshrined in these agreements.” Hallward-Driemeier (2003), p. 3.
- 29.
Chaisse and Bellak (2011), p. 3.
- 30.
Bilateral Investment Treaties Selection Index, BITSel (2013), Version 4.00, available at: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/law/proj/BITSel.
- 31.
These include: (1) the definition of investment; (2) admission for foreign investment; (3) national treatment; (4) most-favoured nation; (5) expropriation and indirect expropriation; (6) fair and equitable treatment; (7) transfer of investment-related funds out of the host State provision; (8) non-economic standards; (9) investor-State dispute mechanism (10) umbrella clause; and (11) temporal scope of application.
- 32.
ICSID, ARB/02/9, Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, 27 October 2006, paras. 128 and 156.
- 33.
LCIA, UN3467, Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Final Award, 1 July, 2004 stated that the purpose of national treatment is to protect investors as compared to local producers, and this cannot be done by addressing exclusively the sector in which the particular activity is undertaken, para. 173.
- 34.
The scope and practical relevance of NT is to a large extent dependent on the reading of the term “like circumstances”. Its definition essentially sets the benchmark for national regulatory freedom to treat certain imported products differently from domestically produced ones. Indeed, “[o]ften the definition of national treatment is qualified by the inclusion of the provision that it only applies in “like circumstances” or “similar circumstances”. As the situations of foreign and domestic investors are often not identical, this language obviously leaves room open for interpretation.”, see Chaisse (2013), p. 332.
- 35.
Chaisse (2014c), p. 101.
- 36.
Tza Yap Sum v. Peru recognises the need to analyse the specific wording of each provision of a treaty in accordance with the established rules of international law; an a priori decision is not appropriate, i.e., it is not possible to decide in general whether MFN clauses are efficacious in some sorts of situation while they are not in others; each MFN clause is a world in itself, which demands an individualised interpretation to determine its scope of application, see ICSID, ARB/07/6, Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence, 19 June 2009, paras. 196–198.
- 37.
See ICSID, ARB/07/17, Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, 21 June 2011, para. 107.
- 38.
See Chaisse (2014d)
- 39.
Parkerings v. Lithuania finds that for investors to be in like circumstances, three conditions must be met: the investor must be a foreign investor; they must be in the same economic or business sector; and the two investors must be treated differently, see ICSID, ARB/05/8, Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, Award, 11 September 2007, para. 371.
- 40.
Following to the arbitral decision in the Maffezini case, much attention has been drawn to the debate of whether provisions relating to the disputes settlement procedures enshrined in one IIA can be “imported” into another IIA by virtue of the MFN clause. The question posed by the Maffezini decision ultimately addresses the general scope of the MFN principle and how the provision is crafted in each individual agreement. This leads us to last section of this chapter dealing with the TPP investor–State dispute mechanism.
- 41.
One can first observe that the MFN provisions already existing in older IIAs will bring to them the benefits of TPP new chapter. Indeed, the commitments by TPP countries may have to be extended MFN, for instance, to Thailand (except dispute settlement), and China (except dispute settlement and obligations specific to existing FTA partners).
- 42.
ICSID, ARB/01/7, MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, Award, 25 May 2004, paras. 104 and 197. This was later confirmed by the Bayindir v. Pakistan Award which applies an MFN clause to import the fair and equitable treatment standard from another treaty entered into after the treaty in question, ICSID, ARB/03/29, Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Award, 27 August 2009, paras. 153-160; and ATA v. Jordan applies an MFN clause to import a fair and equitable treatment and treatment no less favourable than that required by international law clause, ICSID, ARB/08/2, ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Award, 18 May 2010, note 16.
- 43.
However, the tribunal considers that having found a breach of the FET standard, it was unnecessary to examine whether there had also been a failure to ensure full protection and security, ICSID, ARB/07/17, Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, 21 June 2011, para. 334.
- 44.
UNCITRAL (2011) White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 30 November 2011, para. 11.2.
- 45.
In doing so, the tribunal notes that it takes no position on the debate over the interaction of MFN clauses with jurisdictional and procedural requirements, ICSID, ARB/03/23, EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, 11 June 2012, paras. 930-936.
- 46.
In Asian Agricultural Products v. Sri Lanka, Dissenting Opinion of Samuel K.B. Asante, citing various publicists, noted that most-favoured-nation treatment does not derive from customary law, see ICSID, ARB/87/3, Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Dissenting Opinion of Samuel K.B. Asante, 27 June 1990, para. 40.
- 47.
See Chaisse et al. (2013), p. 44.
- 48.
As early as 2006, Richard Baldwin argued that because the “spaghetti bowl’s inefficiencies are increasingly magnified by unbundling and the rich/poor asymmetry, the world must find a solution. Since regionalism is here to stay, the solution must work with existing regionalism, not against it. The solution must multilateralize regionalism.”, see Baldwin (2006), p. 1451.
- 49.
The TPP countries currently are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, United States of America, and Vietnam.
- 50.
See Lim et al. (2012), p. 3.
- 51.
See Lim et al. (2012), p. 3.
- 52.
For example, how will the TPP relate to existing FTAs between TPP negotiating parties, such as the USA-Australia, USA-Singapore, or Singapore-Australia FTAs?
- 53.
Taipei, China, President Ma Ying-jeou said his government will work hard to create the conditions for Taipei, China, to participate in the USA-led TPP at an appropriate time, see Shu-hua and Low (2013).
- 54.
To these current developments, one should add the start of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TATP) announced by President Obama in his 2012 speech on the State of the Union.
References
Baert T (2003) The Euro-Mediterranean agreements. In: Sampson, Woolcock (eds) Regionalism, multilateralism and economic integration – the recent experience, p 100
Baldwin (2006) Multilateralising regionalism: Spaghetti bowls as building blocs on the path to global free trade. The World Economy 29(11):1451
Bilateral Investment Treaties Selection Index, BITSel (2013) Version 4.00. http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/law/proj/BITSel.
Chaisse J (2012a) The regulation of sovereign wealth funds in the European Union – can supranational level limit the rise of national protectionism? In: Sauvant, Sachs, Schmit Jongbloed (eds) Sovereign investment: concerns and policy reactions, p 462
Chaisse J (2012b) Promises and pitfalls of the European Union policy on foreign investment—how will the new EU competence on FDI affect the emerging global regime. J Int Econ Law 15(1):51
Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections – general exceptions clause as a forced perspective. Am J Law Med 39(2–3):332
Chaisse J (2014a) Investigating the scenario of investment rule-making and arbitration in Asia. J World Investment & Trade 15(5)
Chaisse J (2014b) The investment version of Asian Noodle Bowl—proliferation of international investment agreements, Asian development bank working paper no. 128:75
Chaisse J (2014c) Changing lanes – trade, investment and intellectual property rights. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 36(1):101
Chaisse J (2014d) The TPP as a NAFTA-related “codification and beyond”. In: Calamita (ed) Current Issues in Investment Treaty Law – V, 2014
Chaisse J, Bellak C (2011) Do bilateral investment treaties promote foreign direct investment? Preliminary reflections on a new methodology. Transl Corp Rev 3(4):3
Chaisse J, Chakraborty D (2014) The evolving and multilayered European Union-India investment relations – regulatory issues and policy conjectures. Eur Law J 20(3): 385
Chaisse J, Chakraborty D, Mukherjee J (2013) Deconstructing service and investment negotiating stance: a case study of India at WTO GATS and investment fora. J World Investment & Trade 14(1):44
European Commission (2010) Communication, towards a comprehensive European international investment policy. COM(2010)343 final. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf
Gugler P, Chaisse J (2009) The patterns and dynamics of Asia’s growing share of foreign direct investment. In: Chaisse, Gugler (eds) Expansion of Trade and Foreign Direct Investment in Asia – Strategic and Policy Challenges, p 1
Hallward-Driemeier M (2003) Do bilateral investment treaties attract FDI? Only a bit…and they could bite. World Bank Dev. Research Grp, research working paper no. 3121 (2003). http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/workingpaper/10.1596/1813-9450-3121
Hamamoto S (2011) A passive player in international investment law: typically Japanese? In: Bath V, Nottage L (eds) Foreign investment and dispute resolution law and practice in Asia, p 53
Jandhyala S, Henisz WJ, Mansfield ED (2010) Pooling is a BIT inappropriate: a two stage model for bilateral investment treaty signing
Klamert M, Maydell N (2008) Lost in exclusivity: implied non-exclusive external competences in community law. Eur Foreign Aff Rev, 13(4):493
Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (2012) What is “High-Quality, Twenty-First Century” Anyway?, In: Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (eds) The Trans-Pacific partnership – a quest for a twenty-first century trade agreement, p 3
Lindstrom B (2010) Scaling back TRIPs-Plus: an analysis of intellectual property provisions in trade agreements and implications for Asia and the Pacific. New York Univ J Int Law Politics 42(3):917
Maydell N (2008) The European community’s minimum platform on investment or the Trojan horse of investment competence, In: Reinisch A, Knahr C (eds) International Investment Law in Context, p 73
Sachs J (2005) The end of poverty: how we can make it happen in our lifetime, 2005
Salacuse JW, Sullivan NP (2005) Do BITs really work?: an evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their Grand Bargain. Harvard Int Law J 46(1):67
Shu-hua L, Low YF (2013) President pledges to create conditions for Taiwan’s TPP access, 21 March 2013. http://www.bilaterals.org/?president-pledges-to-create&lang=en
UNCITRAL (2011) White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 30 November 2011
UNCTAD (2013) World Investment Report 2013. http://unctad.org/diae
Willems JY (2011) The settlement of investor state disputes and China new developments on ICSID jurisdiction. South Carolina J Int Law Bus 8(1):Article 2
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Kun Fan, Shotaro Hamamoto, Christoph Herrmann, Sufian Jusoh, and Chien-Huei Wu for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. A preliminary version of the paper was presented at the CECIL Conference held at the Passau Law Faculty (Germany) on 22 November, 2013 and at the Research seminar held at the CUHK Faculty of Law, on 22 April, 2014, and I am are grateful to participants for their comments and suggestions. Thanks also are due to Ms Xu Qian from the CUHK Faculty of Law for the excellence of her research assistance. The views expressed by the author here are personal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annex: The Asian “Noodle Bowl” of Investment Treaties
Annex: The Asian “Noodle Bowl” of Investment Treaties
Armenia | Australia | Azerbaijan | Bangladesh | Brunei Darussalam | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | |||||
Australia | |||||
Azerbaijan | |||||
Bangladesh | |||||
Brunei Darussalam | |||||
Cambodia | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 18 Mar 1995 | BIT 11 July 1988 | BIT 1 Apr 1995 | BIT 25 Mar 1997 | BIT not yet into force |
Georgia | BIT 18 Feb 1997 | BIT 10 July 1996 | |||
Hong Kong, China | BIT 15 Oct 1993 | ||||
India | BIT 30 May 2006 | BIT 4 May 2000 | BIT 7 Jul 2011 | BIT 18 Jan 2009 | |
Indonesia | BIT 29 July 1993 | BIT 22 Apr 1999 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Japan | BIT 25 Aug 1999 | FTA Brunei Darussalam—Japan 31 Jul 2008 | |||
Kazakhstan | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 25 Jan 2008 | BIT 6 Oct 1988 | |||
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT 27 Oct 1995 | BIT 28 Aug 1997 | |||
Lao PDR | BIT 8 Apr 1995 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Malaysia | BIT 20 Aug 1996 | ||||
Mongolia | |||||
Myanmar | |||||
Nepal | |||||
New Zealand | BIT not yet into force and Australia–New Zealand (ANZCERTA) 1 Jan 1989 | FTA Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 28 May 2006 | |||
Pakistan | BIT 14 Aug 1998 | BIT not yet into force | |||
Papua New Guinea | BIT 20 Oct 1991 | ||||
Philippines | BIT 8 Dec 1995 | BIT 1 Aug 1998 | |||
Singapore | FTA Singapore–Australia 28 Jul 2003 | BIT 19 Nov 2004 | FTA Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 28 May 2006 | ||
Sri Lanka | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Taipei, China | |||||
Tajikistan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 26 Feb 2008 | |||
Thailand | FTA Thailand–Australia 1 Jan 2005 | BIT 12 Jan 2003 | |||
Turkmenistan | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Uzbekistan | BIT 2 Nov 1996 | BIT 24 Jan 2001 | |||
Vanuatu | |||||
Viet Nam | BIT 28 Apr 1993 | BIT 11 Sep 1991 | BIT not yet into force |
Cambodia | China, People Republic of | Georgia | Hong Kong, China | India | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | BIT 18 Mar 1995 | BIT 18 Feb 1997 | BIT 30 May 2006 | ||
Australia | BIT 11 July 1988 | BIT 15 Oct 1993 | BIT 4 May 2000 | ||
Azerbaijan | BIT 1 Apr 1995 | BIT 10 July 1996 | |||
Bangladesh | BIT 25 Mar 1997 | BIT 7 July 2011 | |||
Brunei Darussalam | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 18 Jan 2009 | ||
Cambodia | BIT 1 Feb 2000 | ||||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 1 Feb 2000 | BIT 1 Mar 1995 | FTA China–Hong Kong, China 29 June 2003 | BIT 1 Aug 2007 | |
Georgia | BIT 1 Mar 1995 | ||||
Hong Kong, China | FTA China–Hong Kong, China 29 June 2003 | ||||
India | BIT 1 Aug 2007 | ||||
Indonesia | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 1 Apr 1995 | BIT 22 Jan 2004 | ||
Japan | BIT 31 Jul 2008 | BIT 14 May 1989 | BIT 18 June 1997 | ||
Kazakhstan | BIT 13 Aug 1994 | BIT 24 Aug 2008 | BIT 26 Jul 2001 | ||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 12 Mar 1997 | BIT 1 Dec 2007 | BIT 30 July 1997 | BIT 7 May 1996 | |
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT 8 Sep 1995 | BIT 28 Oct 1997 | BIT 10 Apr 1998 | ||
Lao PDR | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 1 June 1993 | BIT 5 Jan 2003 | ||
Malaysia | BIT not yet into force | BIT 31 Mar 1990 | BIT 12 Apr 1997 | ||
Mongolia | BIT 1 Nov 1993 | BIT 29 Apr 2002 | |||
Myanmar | BIT 21 May 2002 | BIT 8 Feb 2009 | |||
Nepal | BIT not yet into force | ||||
New Zealand | BIT 25 Mar 1989 and FTA China– New Zealand 1 Oct 2008 | BIT 5 Aug 1995 and Hong Kong, China– New Zealand 1 Jan 2011 | |||
Pakistan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 30 Sep 1990 and FTA Pakistan–China 1 Jul 2007 | |||
Papua New Guinea | BIT 12 Feb 1993 | ||||
Philippines | BIT not yet into force | BIT 8 Sep. 1995 | BIT 29 Jan 2001 | ||
Singapore | BIT 24 Feb 2000 | BIT 7 Feb 1986 | FTA India–Singapore 1 Aug 2005 | ||
Sri Lanka | BIT 25 Mar 1987 | BIT 13 Feb 1998 | |||
Taipei, China | BIT 28 Nov 2002 | ||||
Tajikistan | BIT 20 Jan 1994 | BIT 14 Nov 2003 | |||
Thailand | BIT 16 Apr 1997 | BIT 13 Dec 1985 | BIT 18 Apr 2006 | BIT 13 July 2001 | |
Turkmenistan | BIT 4 June 1994 | BIT 21 Nov 1996 | BIT 27 Feb 2006 | ||
Uzbekistan | BIT 1 Sep 2011 | BIT 24 May 1999 | BIT 28 Jul 2000 | ||
Vanuatu | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Viet Nam | BIT not yet into force | BIT 1 Sep 1993 | BIT 1 Dec 1999 |
Indonesia | Japan | Kazakhstan | Korea, Republic of | Kyrgyz Republic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | BIT 27 Oct 1995 | ||||
Australia | BIT 29 July 1993 | ||||
Azerbaijan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 25 Jan 2008 | BIT 28 Aug 1997 | ||
Bangladesh | BIT 22 Apr 1999 | BIT 25 Aug 1999 | BIT not yet into force | ||
Brunei Darussalam | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | FTA Brunei Darussalam–Japan 31 Jul 2008 | BIT 30 Oct 2003 | ||
Cambodia | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 31 Jan 2008 | BIT 12 Mar 1997 | ||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 1 Apr 1995 | BIT 14 May 1989 | BIT 13 Aug 1994 | BIT 1 Dec 2007 | BIT 8 Sep 1995 |
Georgia | BIT 24 Aug 2008 | BIT 28 Oct 1997 | |||
Hong Kong, China | BIT 18 June 1997 | BIT 30 July 1997 | |||
India | BIT 22 Jan 2004 | BIT 26 Jul 2001 | BIT 7 May 1996 | BIT 10 Apr 1998 | |
Indonesia | FTA Japan–Indonesia 1 Jul 2008 | BIT 10 Mar 1994 | BIT 23 Apr 1997 | ||
Japan | FTA Japan–Indonesia 1 Jul 2008 | BIT 1 Jan 2003 | |||
Kazakhstan | BIT 26 Dec 1996 | BIT not yet into force | |||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 10 Mar 1994 | BIT 1 Jan 2003 | BIT 26 Dec 1996 | BIT 8 June 2008 | |
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT 23 Apr 1997 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 8 June 2008 | ||
Lao PDR | BIT 14 Oct 1995 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 3 Aug 2009 | BIT 14 June 1996 | ||
Malaysia | BIT 27 Oct 1999 | FTA Japan–Malaysia 13 Jul 2006 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 31 Mar 1989 | BIT not yet into force |
Mongolia | BIT 13 Oct 1999 | BIT 24 Mar 2002 | BIT 3 Mar 1995 | BIT 30 Apr 1991 | BIT not yet into force |
Myanmar | |||||
Nepal | |||||
New Zealand | |||||
Pakistan | BIT 3 Dec 1996 | BIT 29 May 2002 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 15 Apr 1990 | BIT not yet into force |
Papua New Guinea | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Philippines | BIT not yet into force | FTA Japan–Philippines 11 Dec 2008 | BIT 25 Apr 1996 | ||
Singapore | BIT 21 June 2006 | FTA Japan–Singapore 30 Nov 2002 | BIT 26 Mar 1998 and FTA Korea, Republic of–Singapore 2 Mar 2006 | ||
Sri Lanka | BIT 21 Jul 1997 | BIT 7 Aug 1982 | BIT 15 Jul 1980 | ||
Taipei, China | |||||
Tajikistan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 13 Aug 1995 | BIT not yet into force | ||
Thailand | BIT 5 Nov 1998 | FTA Japan–Thailand 1 Nov 2007 | BIT 30 Sep 1989 | ||
Turkmenistan | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Uzbekistan | BIT 27 Apr 1997 | BIT 29 Sep 2009 | BIT 8 Sep 1997 | BIT 20 Nov 1992 | BIT 6 Feb 1997 |
Vanuatu | |||||
Viet Nam | BIT 3 Apr 1994 | BIT 19 Dec 2004 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 5 Jun 2004 |
Lao PDR | Malaysia | Mongolia | Myanmar | Nepal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | |||||
Australia | BIT 8 Apr 1995 | ||||
Azerbaijan | |||||
Bangladesh | BIT 20 Aug 1996 | ||||
Brunei Darussalam | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Cambodia | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 1 June 1993 | BIT 31 Mar 1990 | BIT 1 Nov 1993 | BIT 21 May 2002 | |
Georgia | |||||
Hong Kong, China | |||||
India | BIT 5 Jan 2003 | BIT 12 Apr 1997 | BIT 29 Apr 2002 | BIT 8 Feb 2009 | BIT not yet into force |
Indonesia | BIT 14 Oct 1995 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 27 Oct 1999 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 13 Oct 1999 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |
Japan | BIT 3 Aug 2009 | FTA Japan-Malaysia 13 Jul 2006 | BIT 24 Mar 2002 | ||
Kazakhstan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 3 Mar 1995 | |||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 14 June 1996 | BIT 31 Mar 1989 | BIT 30 Apr 1991 | ||
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT not yet into force | BIT not yet into force | |||
Lao PDR | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 29 Dec 1994 | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Malaysia | BIT not yet into force | BIT 14 Jan 1996 | |||
Mongolia | BIT 29 Dec 1994 | BIT 14 Jan 1996 | |||
Myanmar | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Nepal | |||||
New Zealand | New Zealand–Malaysia 1 Aug 2010 | ||||
Pakistan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 30 Nov 1995 and FTA Pakistan–Malaysia 1 Jan 2008 | |||
Papua New Guinea | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Philippines | BIT 1 Nov 2001 | BIT 11 Sep 1998 | |||
Singapore | BIT 26 Mar 1998 | BIT 7 Jan 1996 | |||
Sri Lanka | BIT 31 Oct 1995 | ||||
Taipei, China | BIT 18 Match 1993 | ||||
Tajikistan | BIT 16 Sep 1999 | ||||
Thailand | BIT 7 Dec 1990 | BIT not yet into force | |||
Turkmenistan | BIT not yet into force | ||||
Uzbekistan | BIT 20 Jan 2000 | ||||
Vanuatu | |||||
Viet Nam | BIT 23 Jun 1996 | BIT 9 Oct 1992 | BIT 13 Dec 2001 | BIT not yet into force |
New Zealand | Pakistan | Papua New Guinea | Philippines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | ||||
Australia | BIT not yet into force and Australia-New Zealand (ANZCERTA) 1 Jan 1989 | BIT 14 Aug 1998 | BIT 20 Oct 1991 | BIT 8 Dec 1995 |
Azerbaijan | ||||
Bangladesh | BIT not yet into force | BIT 1 Aug 1998 | ||
Brunei Darussalam | FTA Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 28 May 2006 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Cambodia | BIT not yet into force | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 25 Mar 1989 and China-New Zealand 1 Oct 2008 | BIT 30 Sep 1990 and FTA Pakistan-China 1 Jul 2007 | BIT 12 Feb 1993 | BIT 8 Sep. 1995 |
Georgia | ||||
Hong Kong, China | BIT 5 Aug 1995 and FTA Hong Kong, China-New Zealand 1 Jan 2011 | |||
India | BIT 29 Jan 2001 | |||
Indonesia | BIT 3 Dec 1996 | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Japan | BIT 29 May 2002 | BIT not yet into force | FTA Japan-Philippines 11 Dec 2008 | |
Kazakhstan | BIT not yet into force | |||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 15 Apr 1990 | BIT 25 Apr 1996 | ||
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT not yet into force | |||
Lao PDR | BIT not yet into force | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Malaysia | New Zealand-Malaysia 1 Aug 2010 | BIT 30 Nov 1995 and FTA Pakistan-Malaysia 1 Jan 2008 | BIT not yet into force | |
Mongolia | BIT 1 Nov 2001 | |||
Myanmar | BIT 11 Sep 1998 | |||
Nepal | ||||
New Zealand | ||||
Pakistan | BIT not yet into force | |||
Papua New Guinea | ||||
Philippines | BIT not yet into force | |||
Singapore | FTA New Zealand-Singapore 1 Jan 2001 and Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 28 May 2006 | BIT 4 May 1995 | ||
Sri Lanka | BIT 5 Jan 2000 | |||
Taipei, China | BIT 28 Apr 1992 | |||
Tajikistan | BIT not yet into force | |||
Thailand | BIT 6 Sep 1996 | |||
Turkmenistan | BIT not yet into force | |||
Uzbekistan | BIT 15 Feb 2006 | |||
Vanuatu | ||||
Viet Nam | BIT 29 Jan 1993 |
Singapore | Sri Lanka | Taipei, China | Tajikistan | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | BIT not yet into force | |||
Australia | FTA Singapore-Australia 28 Jul 2003 | BIT not yet into force | ||
Azerbaijan | BIT 26 Feb 2008 | |||
Bangladesh | BIT 19 Nov 1994 | |||
Brunei Darussalam | FTA Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 28 May 2006 | |||
Cambodia | BIT 26 Feb 2000 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 7 Feb 1986 | BIT 25 Mar 1987 | BIT 20 Jan 1994 | |
Georgia | ||||
Hong Kong, China | ||||
India | FTA India-Singapore 1 Aug 2005 | BIT 13 Feb 1998 | BIT 28 Nov 2002 | BIT 14 Nov 2003 |
Indonesia | BIT 21 June 2006 | BIT 21 Jul 1997 | BIT not yet into force | |
Japan | FTA Japan–Singapore 30 Nov 2002 | BIT 7 Aug 1982 | ||
Kazakhstan | ||||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 26 Mar 1998 and FTA Korea, Republic of–Singapore 2 Mar 2006 | BIT 15 Jul 1980 | BIT 13 Aug 1995 | |
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT not yet into force | |||
Lao PDR | BIT 26 Mar 1998 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Malaysia | BIT 31 Oct 1995 | BIT 18 Match 1993 | ||
Mongolia | BIT 7 Jan 1996 | BIT 16 Sep 1999 | ||
Myanmar | ||||
Nepal | ||||
New Zealand | FTA New Zealand–Singapore 1 Jan 2001 and Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 28 May 2006 | |||
Pakistan | BIT 4 May 1995 | BIT 5 Jan 2000 | BIT not yet into force | |
Papua New Guinea | ||||
Philippines | BIT 28 Apr 1992 | |||
Singapore | BIT 30 Sep 1980 | BIT 9 Apr 1990 | ||
Sri Lanka | BIT 30 Sep 1980 | |||
Taipei, China | BIT 9 Apr 1990 | |||
Tajikistan | ||||
Thailand | BIT 14 May 1996 | BIT 30 Apr 1996 | BIT not yet into force | |
Turkmenistan | ||||
Uzbekistan | BIT 23 Nov 2003 | |||
Vanuatu | ||||
Viet Nam | BIT 25 Dec 1992 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 23 Apr 1993 | BIT not yet into force |
Thailand | Turkmenistan | Uzbekistan | Vanuatu | Viet Nam | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | BIT not yet into force | BIT 28 Apr 1993 | |||
Australia | FTA Thailand-Australia 1 Jan 2005 | BIT 11 Sep 1991 | |||
Azerbaijan | BIT 2 Nov 1996 | ||||
Bangladesh | BIT 12 Jan 2003 | BIT 24 Jan 2001 | BIT not yet into force | ||
Brunei Darussalam | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Cambodia | BIT 16 Apr 1997 | BIT not yet into force and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
China, People’s Republic of | BIT 13 Dec 1985 | BIT 4 June 1994 | BIT 1 Sep 2011 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 1 Sep 1993 |
Georgia | BIT 21 Nov 1996 | BIT 24 May 1999 | |||
Hong Kong, China | BIT 18 Apr 2006 | ||||
India | BIT 13 July 2001 | BIT 27 Feb 2006 | BIT 28 Jul 2000 | BIT 1 Dec 1999 | |
Indonesia | BIT 5 Nov 1998 | BIT not yet into force | BIT 27 Apr 1997 | BIT 3 Apr 1994 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |
Japan | FTA Japan-Thailand 1 Nov 2007 | BIT 29 Sep 2009 | BIT 19 Dec 2004 | ||
Kazakhstan | BIT 8 Sep 1997 | BIT not yet into force | |||
Korea, Republic of | BIT 30 Sep 1989 | BIT 20 Nov 1992 | BIT 5 Jun 2004 | ||
Kyrgyz Republic | BIT 6 Feb 1997 | ||||
Lao PDR | BIT 7 Dec 1990 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | BIT 23 Jun 1996 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Malaysia | BIT not yet into force | BIT 20 Jan 2000 | BIT 9 Oct 1992 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||
Mongolia | BIT 13 Dec 2001 | ||||
Myanmar | BIT not yet into force | BIT not yet into force ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Nepal | |||||
New Zealand | |||||
Pakistan | BIT not yet into force | BIT 15 Feb 2006 | |||
Papua New Guinea | |||||
Philippines | BIT 6 Sep 1996 | BIT 29 Jan 1993 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Singapore | BIT 23 Nov 2003 | BIT 25 Dec 1992 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | |||
Sri Lanka | BIT 14 May 1996 | BIT not yet into force | |||
Taipei, China | BIT 30 Apr 1996 | BIT 23 Apr 1993 | |||
Tajikistan | BIT not yet into force | BIT not yet into force | |||
Thailand | BIT 7 Feb 1992 and ACIA 1 Mar 2012 | ||||
Turkmenistan | BIT 2 Aug 1996 | ||||
Uzbekistan | BIT 2 Aug 1996 | BIT 6 Mar 1998 | |||
Vanuatu | |||||
Viet Nam | BIT 7 Feb 1992 | BIT 6 Mar 1998 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chaisse, J. (2015). The European Union’s Normative Power in Asia: Endogenous and Exogenous Factors of the Nascent Investment Policy. In: Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2015. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46748-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46748-0_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46747-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46748-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)