Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami
Christina Desy, Kartini L Makmur
Counting down to the commencement of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), ASEAN members gathered at the Regional Interactive Meeting on Investment Treaty Models from 20 to 22 January 2015 in Indonesia. The main objective was to discuss the most suitable investment agreement model to be applied to interstate investment in ASEAN.
Lawan Thanadsillapakul, a professor at the School of Law at Sukhothai Thammathirat University, commented that investment agreements should aim to ensure protection of the contracting parties. As such, an investment agreement is an important instrument for attracting increased foreign investment.
Given this general function of investment agreements, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul believes that any model is valid to be adopted for interstate investment in ASEAN. In her view, the core concern is the ability of the respective host country to strengthen its position through the substance of the agreement.
Nonetheless, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul observes that ASEAN countries tend to take the stance of maintaining their sovereignty when dealing with investment liberalization, particularly in regard to social, security, environmental, local employment, and cultural issues. As a result, investment agreements concluded with ASEAN countries are generally based on national laws, although they also include certain international law principles on investment protection.
Despite the fact that this practice may jeopardize the attractiveness of investment into ASEAN, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul also understands that ASEAN countries have a legitimate need to assure their sovereignty within the context of globalization. More specifically, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul explained that ASEAN countries still use investment agreements to protect their ability to control investors so that investment will result in the best outcome for the state’s economic growth in line with government plans and policies.
Responding Mrs. Thanadsillapakul’s statement, Damon Vis Dunbar, an advisor at the World Trade Organization, thinks that both investors and investment host countries actually have equal responsibilities. On one hand host countries must maintain their sovereignty while at the same time striving to attract more investment by accommodating the interests of investors. On the other hand, investors must comply with various obligations under the national laws and regulations of the investment host country.
Mr. Dunbar, however, sees that investment host country usually have the upper hand over the investors under most investment agreements. As an example, Mr. Dunbar highlights the not uncommon case of a host country often bringing an investor before an arbitration tribunal with allegations of violations of the investment agreement.
“Sadly, some of the accused violations are not even clearly stipulated under the agreement,” said Mr. Dunbar.
This situation leads to frustration on the part of investors as the investment agreements lacks sufficient protection of investors. To overcome this issue, Mr. Dunbar urges investment host countries to specify more comprehensive investment agreements which incorporate and integrate investors’ obligations and possible violations under the investment agreement. This would include obligations on environmental impact analysis and management, labor issues, as well as the possibility of violations based on corruption within the investor’s companies.
Adding to Mr. Dunbar’s postion, Nathalie Benasconi, a researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), also suggests that host countries also consider obtaining information from the investors’ country of origin about the investors’ compliance record there. If this is done, Mrs. Benasconi believes that investment host countries can better ensure a positive contribution by foreign investment towards their national development while also better catering for investors protection.
(hot/kc)
Counting down to the commencement of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), ASEAN members gathered at the Regional Interactive Meeting on Investment Treaty Models from 20 to 22 January 2015 in Indonesia. The main objective was to discuss the most suitable investment agreement model to be applied to interstate investment in ASEAN.Lawan Thanadsillapakul, a professor at the School of Law at Sukhothai Thammathirat University, commented that investment agreements should aim to ensure protection of the contracting parties. As such, an investment agreement is an important instrument for attracting increased foreign investment.
Given this general function of investment agreements, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul believes that any model is valid to be adopted for interstate investment in ASEAN. In her view, the core concern is the ability of the respective host country to strengthen its position through the substance of the agreement.
Nonetheless, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul observes that ASEAN countries tend to take the stance of maintaining their sovereignty when dealing with investment liberalization, particularly in regard to social, security, environmental, local employment, and cultural issues. As a result, investment agreements concluded with ASEAN countries are generally based on national laws, although they also include certain international law principles on investment protection.
Despite the fact that this practice may jeopardize the attractiveness of investment into ASEAN, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul also understands that ASEAN countries have a legitimate need to assure their sovereignty within the context of globalization. More specifically, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul explained that ASEAN countries still use investment agreements to protect their ability to control investors so that investment will result in the best outcome for the state’s economic growth in line with government plans and policies.
Responding Mrs. Thanadsillapakul’s statement, Damon Vis Dunbar, an advisor at the World Trade Organization, thinks that both investors and investment host countries actually have equal responsibilities. On one hand host countries must maintain their sovereignty while at the same time striving to attract more investment by accommodating the interests of investors. On the other hand, investors must comply with various obligations under the national laws and regulations of the investment host country.
Mr. Dunbar, however, sees that investment host country usually have the upper hand over the investors under most investment agreements. As an example, Mr. Dunbar highlights the not uncommon case of a host country often bringing an investor before an arbitration tribunal with allegations of violations of the investment agreement.
“Sadly, some of the accused violations are not even clearly stipulated under the agreement,” said Mr. Dunbar.
This situation leads to frustration on the part of investors as the investment agreements lacks sufficient protection of investors. To overcome this issue, Mr. Dunbar urges investment host countries to specify more comprehensive investment agreements which incorporate and integrate investors’ obligations and possible violations under the investment agreement. This would include obligations on environmental impact analysis and management, labor issues, as well as the possibility of violations based on corruption within the investor’s companies.
Adding to Mr. Dunbar’s postion, Nathalie Benasconi, a researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), also suggests that host countries also consider obtaining information from the investors’ country of origin about the investors’ compliance record there. If this is done, Mrs. Benasconi believes that investment host countries can better ensure a positive contribution by foreign investment towards their national development while also better catering for investors protection.
(hot/kc)
Christina Desy, Kartini L Makmur
Counting down to the commencement of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), ASEAN members gathered at the Regional Interactive Meeting on Investment Treaty Models from 20 to 22 January 2015 in Indonesia. The main objective was to discuss the most suitable investment agreement model to be applied to interstate investment in ASEAN.
Lawan Thanadsillapakul, a professor at the School of Law at Sukhothai Thammathirat University, commented that investment agreements should aim to ensure protection of the contracting parties. As such, an investment agreement is an important instrument for attracting increased foreign investment.
Given this general function of investment agreements, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul believes that any model is valid to be adopted for interstate investment in ASEAN. In her view, the core concern is the ability of the respective host country to strengthen its position through the substance of the agreement.
Nonetheless, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul observes that ASEAN countries tend to take the stance of maintaining their sovereignty when dealing with investment liberalization, particularly in regard to social, security, environmental, local employment, and cultural issues. As a result, investment agreements concluded with ASEAN countries are generally based on national laws, although they also include certain international law principles on investment protection.
Despite the fact that this practice may jeopardize the attractiveness of investment into ASEAN, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul also understands that ASEAN countries have a legitimate need to assure their sovereignty within the context of globalization. More specifically, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul explained that ASEAN countries still use investment agreements to protect their ability to control investors so that investment will result in the best outcome for the state’s economic growth in line with government plans and policies.
Responding Mrs. Thanadsillapakul’s statement, Damon Vis Dunbar, an advisor at the World Trade Organization, thinks that both investors and investment host countries actually have equal responsibilities. On one hand host countries must maintain their sovereignty while at the same time striving to attract more investment by accommodating the interests of investors. On the other hand, investors must comply with various obligations under the national laws and regulations of the investment host country.
Mr. Dunbar, however, sees that investment host country usually have the upper hand over the investors under most investment agreements. As an example, Mr. Dunbar highlights the not uncommon case of a host country often bringing an investor before an arbitration tribunal with allegations of violations of the investment agreement.
“Sadly, some of the accused violations are not even clearly stipulated under the agreement,” said Mr. Dunbar.
This situation leads to frustration on the part of investors as the investment agreements lacks sufficient protection of investors. To overcome this issue, Mr. Dunbar urges investment host countries to specify more comprehensive investment agreements which incorporate and integrate investors’ obligations and possible violations under the investment agreement. This would include obligations on environmental impact analysis and management, labor issues, as well as the possibility of violations based on corruption within the investor’s companies.
Adding to Mr. Dunbar’s postion, Nathalie Benasconi, a researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), also suggests that host countries also consider obtaining information from the investors’ country of origin about the investors’ compliance record there. If this is done, Mrs. Benasconi believes that investment host countries can better ensure a positive contribution by foreign investment towards their national development while also better catering for investors protection.
(hot/kc)
Counting down to the commencement of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), ASEAN members gathered at the Regional Interactive Meeting on Investment Treaty Models from 20 to 22 January 2015 in Indonesia. The main objective was to discuss the most suitable investment agreement model to be applied to interstate investment in ASEAN.Lawan Thanadsillapakul, a professor at the School of Law at Sukhothai Thammathirat University, commented that investment agreements should aim to ensure protection of the contracting parties. As such, an investment agreement is an important instrument for attracting increased foreign investment.
Given this general function of investment agreements, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul believes that any model is valid to be adopted for interstate investment in ASEAN. In her view, the core concern is the ability of the respective host country to strengthen its position through the substance of the agreement.
Nonetheless, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul observes that ASEAN countries tend to take the stance of maintaining their sovereignty when dealing with investment liberalization, particularly in regard to social, security, environmental, local employment, and cultural issues. As a result, investment agreements concluded with ASEAN countries are generally based on national laws, although they also include certain international law principles on investment protection.
Despite the fact that this practice may jeopardize the attractiveness of investment into ASEAN, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul also understands that ASEAN countries have a legitimate need to assure their sovereignty within the context of globalization. More specifically, Mrs. Thanadsillapakul explained that ASEAN countries still use investment agreements to protect their ability to control investors so that investment will result in the best outcome for the state’s economic growth in line with government plans and policies.
Responding Mrs. Thanadsillapakul’s statement, Damon Vis Dunbar, an advisor at the World Trade Organization, thinks that both investors and investment host countries actually have equal responsibilities. On one hand host countries must maintain their sovereignty while at the same time striving to attract more investment by accommodating the interests of investors. On the other hand, investors must comply with various obligations under the national laws and regulations of the investment host country.
Mr. Dunbar, however, sees that investment host country usually have the upper hand over the investors under most investment agreements. As an example, Mr. Dunbar highlights the not uncommon case of a host country often bringing an investor before an arbitration tribunal with allegations of violations of the investment agreement.
“Sadly, some of the accused violations are not even clearly stipulated under the agreement,” said Mr. Dunbar.
This situation leads to frustration on the part of investors as the investment agreements lacks sufficient protection of investors. To overcome this issue, Mr. Dunbar urges investment host countries to specify more comprehensive investment agreements which incorporate and integrate investors’ obligations and possible violations under the investment agreement. This would include obligations on environmental impact analysis and management, labor issues, as well as the possibility of violations based on corruption within the investor’s companies.
Adding to Mr. Dunbar’s postion, Nathalie Benasconi, a researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), also suggests that host countries also consider obtaining information from the investors’ country of origin about the investors’ compliance record there. If this is done, Mrs. Benasconi believes that investment host countries can better ensure a positive contribution by foreign investment towards their national development while also better catering for investors protection.
(hot/kc)