Investment Treaty Arbitration Policy in Australia, New Zealand and Korea?
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part Ⅱ(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part Ⅱ(2)). Australia’s close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part Ⅲ below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part Ⅳ, Korea’s stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS – and indeed international arbitration more generally – in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.
Abstract
As in some developing countries and more recently some developed countries worldwide and in the Asian region, Australia has faced significant internal opposition and public debate especially over treaty-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As outlined in Part Ⅱ(1), concerns have re-emerged and escalated since the first-ever claim was brought against Australia regarding its tobacco plain packaging legislation, in 2011 by Philip Morris Asia under an old BIT with Hong Kong. However, Australia signed bilateral FTAs with Korea in 2014 and with China in 2015, including ISDS protections, prompting several sets of parliamentary inquiries (Part Ⅱ(2)). Australia’s close trading partner, New Zealand, had already concluded an FTA with China in 2008 that included more expansive ISDS-backed investor protections. In 2015, the New Zealand Parliament has been debating ratification of its own FTA with Korea, with ISDS also now attracting growing scrutiny, as elaborated in Part Ⅲ below. In both bilateral FTA negotiations, the present Korean government seems to have reverted to a strong preference for concluding investment agreements with extensive ISDS protections, despite public and parliamentary debate around 2011 in the context of ratifying its FTA with the United States. As mentioned briefly in the concluding Part Ⅳ, Korea’s stance has significant implications for the future trajectory of treaty-based ISDS – and indeed international arbitration more generally – in the Asia-Pacific region, and perhaps even globally.
참고문헌 (32)
- Frank, Holmes, "Open Regionalism? NAFTA, CER and a Pacific Basin Initiative" (1992), Institute of Policy Studies
- Nixon, Chris, "New Zealand's Trade Policy Odyssey: Ottawa, Via Marrakech, and On" (2002), New Zealand Institute of Economic Research
- Uren, David, "Takeover: Foreign Investment and the Australian Psyche" (2015), Penguin Books Australia
- Williams, David, "Williams & Kawharu on Arbitration" (2011), LexisNexis
- Bath, Vivienne, "International Investment Law", pp.283~303 (2015)
- Bath, Vivienne, "Routledge Handbook of Asian Law" (2016), Routledge
- Karl, Joachim, "International Investment Law, Marc Bungenberg", pp.342~360 (2015)
- Nottage, Luke, "Trade Agreements at the Crossroads", pp.114~138 (2014), Routledge
- Nottage, Luke, "Regionalism in International Investment Law", pp.452~474 (2013), Oxford University Press
- Ranald, Patricia, "Stopping the Juggernaut: Public Interest Versus the Multilateral Agreement on Investment", pp.15~32 (1999), Pluto Press
- Torterola, Ignacio, "Latin American Investment Protections: Comparative Perspectives on Laws, Treaties, and Disputes for Investors, States and Counsel", pp.5~52 (2012), Brill
- Burch, Micah, "Appropriate Treaty-Based Dispute Resolution for Asia-Pacific Commerce in the 21st Century", UNSW Law Journal, 35(3), pp.1013~1043 (2012)
- Catalinac, Amy L, "Why New Zealand Took Itself out of ANZUS: Observing ‘Opposition for Autonomy’ in Asymmetric Alliances", Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(4), pp.317~338 (2010)
- Crockett, Antony, "Indonesia's Bilateral Investment Treaties: Between Generations?", ICSID Review, 30(2), pp.437~448 (2015)
- Dodge, William, "Investor-State Dispute Settlement between Developed Countries: Reflections on the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement", Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 39(1), pp.1~37 (2006)
- Ishikawa, Tomoko, "Keeping Interpretation in Investment Treaty Arbitration 'on Track':The Role of States Parties", Transnational Dispute Management, 1 (2014)
- Kantor, Mark, "Investor-State Arbitration over Investments in Financial Services: Disputes Under New U.S. Investment Treaties", Transnational Dispute Management, 3 (2004)
- Kawharu, Amokura, "The Investment Chapter of the New Zealand - Korea Free Trade Agreement: A Portent of Things to Come?", New Zealand Universities Law Review (2015)
- Kim, Joongi, "Investment Law and Dispute Resolution Law and Practice in Asia", pp.211~24 (2011), Routledge
- "Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal", 2015, ~
- Kurtz, Jurgen, "Australia’s Rejection of Investor-State Arbitration: Causation, Omission and Implication", ICSID Review, 27(1), pp.65~ (2012)
- Kurtz, Jurgen, "Investment Treaty Arbitration ‘Down Under’: Policy and Politics in Australia", ICSID Review, 30(2), pp.465~480 (2015)
- McCormick, James M, "Healing the American Rift with New Zealand", Pacific Affairs, 68(3), pp.392~410 (1995)
- Miles, Kate, "'Back to the Future’ for Investor-State Arbitrations:Revising Rules in Australia and Japan for Public Interests", Journal of International Arbitration, 26(1), pp.25~58
- Nottage, Luke, "Do Many of Australia's Bilateral Treaties Really Not Provide Full Advance Consent to Investor-State Arbitration? Analysis and Regional Implications", Transnational Dispute Management, 1 (2015)
- Nottage, Luke, "Investor-State Arbitration: Not in the Australia-Japan Free Trade Agreement, and Not Ever for Australia?", Journal of Japanese Law, 19(38), pp.37~52 (2014)
- Nottage, Luke, "The 2015 Senate Inquiry into the Commonwealth’s Treaty Making Process – and ISDS Policy for Australia", ACICA Review, pp.48~51 (2015)
- Nottage, Luke, "The ‘Anti-ISDS Bill’ before the Senate: What Future for Investor-State Arbitration in Australia?", International Trade and Business Law Review, XVIII, pp.245~293 (2015)
- Nottage, Luke, "The Rise and Possible Fall of Investor-State Arbitration in Asia: A Skeptic’s View of Australia’s ‘Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement’", Transnational Dispute Management Journal, 5 (2011)
- Paterson, Luke Eric, "Analysis: As Al Jazeera Media Network notifies Egypt of possible arbitration claim, what legal arguments loom in such a case?", Investment Arbitration Reporter, ~ (2014)
- Trakman, Leon, "Choosing Domestic Courts over Investor-State Arbitration: Australia’s Repudiation of the Status Quo", University of New South Wales Law Journal, 35(3), pp.979~1012 (2012)
- Westcott, Thomas, "Foreign Investment Policy and Australia’s International Investment Agreements: Catching the Third Wave", ~ (2007)