Investment Laws of ASEAN Countries: A comparative review
This report compares the investment laws of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states, focusing on basic questions relating to the function of investment laws in each country.
The main findings of the paper are as follows:
- Not every ASEAN country has an investment law. For example, Singapore, which is the most successful ASEAN country in attracting foreign investment, does not have an investment law.
- Some ASEAN countries have multiple investment laws, each with a different function. For example, the Malaysian Promotion of Investment Act deals exclusively with investment incentives, while the Thai Foreign Business Act deals exclusively with restrictions and conditions on foreign investment.
- These laws form only a small part of the legal and regulatory regime governing investment. It is impossible to evaluate a country’s investment law without considering how it fits into the wider legal and regulatory framework governing investment.
This paper also highlights fundamental differences between investment laws and investment treaties:
- Among ASEAN countries, no country’s investment law includes the combination of vague investor rights commonly found in investment treaties. For example, aside from the Myanmar Investment Law (2016), no ASEAN investment law guarantees investors “fair and equitable treatment” (FET). FET is among the most far-reaching, and widely criticized, investor rights that investment treaties grant to foreign investors. Moreover, the Myanmar Investment Law defines FET very differently from the way that investment treaty tribunals have understood that concept.
- No ASEAN country grants general consent to investor–state arbitration in its investment law. However, many ASEAN countries do allow investor–state arbitration in cases where there is a specific agreement between an individual investor and the host government—in for example, an investor–state contract—to resolve a dispute through arbitration.
You might also be interested in
United We Leave or Divided We Stay? Why it’s time for the EU to speak with one voice regarding the Energy Charter Treaty
After a written procedure that was finalized on Friday July 7, the European Commission formally recommended a coordinated EU withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty. What does this mean for climate action?
Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement: Why does it matter?
Rashmi Jose provides a state-of-play for the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) and why it matters from the sustainable development perspective.
Bruxelles propose une sortie à l’échelle de l’UE du traité sur la Charte de l’énergie, considéré comme contraire au Green Deal
La Commission européenne a formellement proposé un retrait « coordonné et ordonné » du traité sur la Charte de l’énergie. La législation proposée, dévoilée vendredi après-midi après des jours de spéculation, verrait l’Union européenne et ses États membres quitter le traité controversé en même temps, évitant le chaos d’avoir des pays individuels suivant leur propre chemin. L’Allemagne, la France, l’Espagne, les Pays-Bas et la Pologne faisaient partie de ceux qui avaient précédemment annoncé leur intention de se retirer de manière unilatérale, à l’instar de l’Italie, qui a quitté la convention en 2016.
Financing a 1.5˚C-Aligned Transition
This briefing aims to inform financial institutions on how to align their investments and energy decision making with the goals of the Paris Agreement.