ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement Research Articles

ASEAN INVESTMENT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM THROUGH REGIONAL INVESTMENT COURT FRAMEWORK

In this paper, the authors provide an overview and comparison of the ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) in the 2004 Protocol on EDSM and the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA 2009) and review ASEAN's experience with investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The paper then examines the challenges and possibilities of restructuring ASEAN DSM through a Regional Investment Court. This includes discussing the potential benefits and drawbacks of such restructuring and its potential implications for regional integration. Finally, the paper offers some thoughts on possible future developments in this area, including the potential impact of a Regional Investment Court on the overall stability and effectiveness of the ASEAN DSM.

Host States’ Counterclaims on Human Rights in Practical Investment Arbitration

This paper analyzes the potential hindrance to the positive results of counterclaims on human rights protection in the practical investment arbitration, then evaluates whether ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement and other treaties with investment provisions would be acceptable legal grounds to enable such counterclaims. This paper argues that to ensure more sustainable investment, future investment treaties should directly provide explicit states’ rights to make counterclaims on human rights protection. As such, these explicit provisions will create better legal grounds for host state to defend their legitimate rights on protecting human right, guarantee the predictability, and avoid the inconsistent interpretation or the reluctance of tribunals. This paper will delve in four substantial issues, including: (i) overview on counterclaims in international investment disputes; (ii) international and municipal regulations on human right protection in investment activities; (iii) host states’ counterclaims on protection of human rights in practical investment arbitration; (iv) control future commitments on states’ counterclaims on human rights.

Prosedur dan Efektifitas Mekanisme Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdagangan dan Investasi Dalam ASEAN

Trade and investment play an important role in the practice of relations between countries in the prospective economic cooperation efforts to increase the economic growth of each country. In this regard, ASEAN also has legal instruments that regulate transactions and investments among other countries. In the trade regime, ASEAN has several agreements such as the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement, ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, and so on. Meanwhile in the investment regime, ASEAN has the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. One of the important components in a Regional Trade Agreement is the clause of a legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. In the trade regime, the system and mechanism of the dispute resolution procedures are separated from other trade agreements, the ASEAN Protocol on the Enhanced Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Meanwhile in the Investment regime, the system and mechanism of the dispute resolution procedure are regulated in the same agreement in the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. This article will describe the procedural mechanism for the dispute resolution framework of the trade and investment regime in ASEAN, as well as focus on each dispute resolution system with the preferences of each participating country, with differences in the use of the dispute system in the WTO.

Prosedur dan Efektifitas Mekanisme Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdagangan dan Investasi Dalam ASEAN

Trade and investment play an important role in the practice of relations between countries in the prospective economic cooperation efforts to increase the economic growth of each country. In this regard, ASEAN also has legal instruments that regulate transactions and investments among other countries. In the trade regime, ASEAN has several agreements such as the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement, ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, and so on. Meanwhile in the investment regime, ASEAN has the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. One of the important components in a Regional Trade Agreement is the clause of a legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. In the trade regime, the system and mechanism of the dispute resolution procedures are separated from other trade agreements, the ASEAN Protocol on the Enhanced Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Meanwhile in the Investment regime, the system and mechanism of the dispute resolution procedure are regulated in the same agreement in the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. This article will describe the procedural mechanism for the dispute resolution framework of the trade and investment regime in ASEAN, as well as focus on each dispute resolution system with the preferences of each participating country, with differences in the use of the dispute system in the WTO.

Analysis of Investment Policy in Indonesia After the Ratification of the Protocol To Amend The Asean Comprehensive Investment Agreement

The Government of Indonesia in an effort to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and increase trade between ASEAN member countries (intra-ASEAN Trade) ratified the protocol to amend the asean comprehensive investment agreement in the form of Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 92 of 2015. Constrained by regulations concerning legalization and licensing at the center and in the area of accelerating efforts, the Investment Coordinating Board is given the task of coordinating the implementation of policies. Moving on from that, the problem was formulated regarding how the substance and investment policies in Indonesia after the ratification of the protocol to amend the asean comprehensive investment agreement. The substance of the protocol to amend the ASEAN comprehensive investment agreement is to create a free and open investment regime in ASEAN, through investment regimes, increased protection, increased transparency and predictability of rules, with fair competition and non-discrimination treatment. With the transition from the existence of the understanding of liberalism, efforts must be made to strengthen the family principle in accordance with Article 33 paragraph (1) of the Constitution. Globalization should be harmonized by considering the entire foundation and a material study of the academic community with the aim of defending the nation's ideology. Then the application of the Triple Helix concept as a transformation effort.

The RCEP and the Changing Landscape of World Trade

Abstract This article provides a detailed economic and legal analysis of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) with regard to foreign investment with the objective to give an assessment of the impact of this new treaty on investment policies and flows in the Asia-Pacific region. Part One analyzes recent foreign direct investment flows in the ASEAN+ 6 countries, focusing on sectors of rapid growth and participation in global value chains and offers an overview of the RCEP rules on investment from an economic and legal perspective. Part Two analyzes the impacts of deep integration agreements on investment, as in the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement and RCEP’s rules on investment, with particular emphasis on the actual and potential role of small and medium-sized enterprises. The final section looks forward, with best case and plausible-scenario analysis of future impacts on FDI within RCEP, if deep integration progresses among the 16 countries.

Erratum

Julien Chaisse and Sufian Jusoh, The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: The Regionalization of Laws and Policy on Foreign Investment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2016, £80.00, 253 pp., ISBN 978-1-78536-001-5. DOI: 10.1177/0015732518764812 By Debashis Chakraborty This book review was printed with an error in the affiliation. The correct affiliation of the reviewer is as follows: Debashis Chakraborty Co-Editor, FTR Indian Institute of Foreign Trade debchakra@gmail.com The error is regretted.

Book Review: Julien Chaisse and Sufian Jusoh, The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: The Regionalization of Laws and Policy on Foreign Investment

Book Review: Julien Chaisse and Sufian Jusoh, <i>The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: The Regionalization of Laws and Policy on Foreign Investment</i>

THE STUDY OF LAW ON INVESTMENT LIBERALISATION POLICIES IN THE REGION OF ASEAN AND THE EFFECTS ON INDONESIA

&lt;p class="Bodytext0"&gt;In order to realize a single ASEAN market through the free flow of investment in ASEAN, the ASEAN member states have agreed on the &lt;em&gt;ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement&lt;/em&gt; or known by the term ACIA signed in Cha-Am (Thailand) on February 26, 2009. The issue is how the rule of law against the liberalization of foreign investment in the ACIA Agreement and how its influence on Indonesia. This research method is a normative juridical research by using a qualitative data analysis technique. Based on the Article 1 (a) of ACIA related to the purpose of the establishment of ACIA the ACIA Agreement contains the legal concept of foreign investment: an investment regime that is "free and open" in ASEAN in order to achieve the ultimate goal of economic integration within the ASEAN Economic Community. This is done through progressive liberalization measures on investment regimes in the Member States of ASEAN. The concept of investment liberalization in the ASEAN region is also well supported by the principles of &lt;em&gt;National Treatment&lt;/em&gt; (Article 5 of ACIA) and the principles of &lt;em&gt;Most Favored Nation Treatment&lt;/em&gt;/&lt;em&gt;MFN Treatment&lt;/em&gt; (Article 6, paragraph 1 of ACIA) in which these two principles are widely known as the principles of law in international economic law. While Indonesia itself has been also engaged in signing and ratifying the ACIA Agreement through Presidential Regulations No. 49 of 2011. This certainly provides a challenge and an opportunity to take advantage of this Agreement, as well as adjust the settings of Indonesian foreign investment (Law No. 25 of 2007) with the consent of the ACIA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="Bodytext0"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Keywords:&lt;/strong&gt; Implementation; Liberalization of Investment; ASEAN Region; Influence and Indonesia.&lt;/p&gt;

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: The Regionalisation of Laws and Policy on Foreign Investment

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: The Regionalisation of Laws and Policy on Foreign Investment

Book Review: J. Chaisse and S. Jusoh., The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (Edgar Elgar Publishing 2016)

Book Review: J. Chaisse and S. Jusoh., The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (Edgar Elgar Publishing 2016)

J. Chaisse and S. Jusoh, The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (Edgar Elgar Publishing 2016), pp. 1–253, £80.00 (hardback)

J. Chaisse and S. Jusoh, The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (Edgar Elgar Publishing 2016), pp. 1–253, £80.00 (hardback)

The ASEAN-China Investment Agreement: A regionalization of China’s BITs

On 15 August 2009, the Agreement on Investment of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was signed in Bangkok, Thailand. The Investment Agreement is the last one of the ASEAN-China free trade agreements. This paper analyzes the provisions of the new agreement, especially those on the scope of application, national treatment, MFN treatment, expropriation, and investor-state dispute resolution. Then, the paper compares the new agreement with other international investment agreements concluded by China or ASEAN. In comparison with the existing BITs between China and individual ASEAN member states, there are significant changes in the Investment Agreement which provides higher standard of investment protection. In this respect, the Investment Agreement is ‘new wine in a new bottle’. Nevertheless, such a standard of investment protection is common in the BITs signed by China since 2000 which constitute a new generation of Chinese BITs. Moreover, unlike some other investment agreements in the free trade arrangements, such as the Chapter 11 of the NAFTA and the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, the Investment Agreement rarely touched upon the issue of investment liberalization, although the Framework Agreement of ASEAN-China FTA provided for creating a liberal investment regime and the ASEAN member states had insisted on provisions of investment liberalization in the negotiations of the Investment Agreement. In this respect, the Investment Agreement represents ‘old wine in the new bottle’. This paper concludes that China is not prepared to undertake investment liberalization obligations in its FTAs, negotiating an investment agreement in China’s FTA arrangements has been regarded as an opportunity to update its old BITs. The ASEAN-China Investment Agreement is rather a regionalization of Chinese BITs and an example of China’s influence on rule-making on regional level.

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: Realizing a Regional Community

In recent decades, States have concluded numerous regional investment treaties, even as the feverish growth in bilateral investment treaties worldwide continues apace. This increasing regionalism within international investment law is a double-edged phenomenon. On the one hand, the risks of fragmentation and incoherence increase exponentially as a regional layer is added to the already-messy “spaghetti bowl” of investment treaties. The noble dream of a uniform, multilateralized set of investment-protection standards thus looks ever more unattainable. On the other hand, a regional investment treaty affords an opportunity for a group of States to balance, in a particularistic manner, between investment-related obligations and other non-investment priorities. This essay focuses on the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement signed in 2009, arguing that it is a region-specific bargain embedded within ASEAN’s wider normative and institutional framework. The potential conflicts between ASEAN Member States’ investment-related obligations and their commitments under two other regional projects are explored, and recommendations are made as to how arbitral tribunals can manage such conflicts.

The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: Realizing a Regional Community

AbstractIn recent decades, States have concluded numerous regional investment treaties, even as the feverish growth in bilateral investment treaties worldwide continues apace. This increasing regionalism within international investment law is a double-edged phenomenon. On the one hand, the risks of fragmentation and incoherence increase exponentially as a regional layer is added to the already-messy “spaghetti bowl” of investment treaties. The noble dream of a uniform, multilateralized set of investment-protection standards thus looks ever more unattainable. On the other hand, a regional investment treaty affords an opportunity for a group of States to balance, in a particularistic manner, between investment-related obligations and other non-investment priorities. This essay focuses on the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement signed in 2009, arguing that it is a region-specific bargain embedded within ASEAN's wider normative and institutional framework. The potential conflicts between ASEAN Member States' investment-related obligations and their commitments under two other regional projects are explored, and recommendations are made as to how arbitral tribunals can manage such conflicts.

The ASEAN-China Investment Agreement: A Regionalization of Chinese New BITs

On 15 August 2009, the Agreement on Investment of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was signed in Bangkok, Thailand. The Investment Agreement is the last one of the ASEAN-China free trade agreements. This paper analyzes the provisions of the new agreement, especially those on the scope of application, national treatment, MFN treatment, expropriation, and investor-state dispute resolution. Then, the paper compares the new agreement with other international investment agreements concluded by China or ASEAN. In comparison with the existing BITs between China and individual ASEAN member states, there are significant changes in the Investment Agreement which provides higher standard of investment protection. In this respect, the Investment Agreement is ‘new wine in a new bottle’. Nevertheless, such a standard of investment protection is common in the BITs signed by China since 2000 which constitute a new generation of Chinese BITs. Moreover, unlike some other investment agreements in the free trade arrangements, such as the Chapter 11 of the NAFTA and the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, the Investment Agreement rarely touched upon the issue of investment liberalization, although the Framework Agreement of ASEAN-China FTA provided for creating a liberal investment regime and the ASEAN member states had insisted on provisions of investment liberalization in the negotiations of the Investment Agreement. In this respect, the Investment Agreement represents ‘old wine in the new bottle’. This paper concludes that China is not prepared to undertake investment liberalization obligations in its FTAs, negotiating an investment agreement in China’s FTA arrangements has been regarded as an opportunity to update its old BITs. The ASEAN-China Investment Agreement is rather a regionalization of Chinese BITs and an example of China’s influence on rule-making on regional level.

The New ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement

The New ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement