Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Growing Tendency of Including Investment Chapters in PTAs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 48))

Abstract

In the context of a rising number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) that include investment protection provisions traditionally found in bilateral investment treaties (BITs), this chapter has a double purpose. First, based on an empirical analysis of 158 post-North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) PTAs, we conclude that three categories of countries/regional economic integration organisations (REIOs) exist: those that regularly include investment chapters into their PTAs (Japan, the United States, Canada, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), those that are finding their voice in international investment law and increasingly include such chapters (India, China, the European Union and Chile) and those that have an adverse position towards it (Brazil and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)) or defer the inclusion of such provisions to further negotiations (African Plurilaterals, Morocco and South Africa). Second, we look at the drivers behind including/excluding investment protection provisions in/from PTAs. Some drivers will be readily apparent from the data collected for the purpose of answering the first question, while other drivers will need a more detailed discussion. These drivers are: (a) the weaker party accepts/uses templates of more powerful states; (b) states/REIOs wish to pursue more comprehensive and resource-friendly negotiations; (c) states/REIOs want to achieve a more coherent application of international economic law.

This work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number 223274, and the Danish Council for Independent Research. We would like to thank Geir Ulfstein, Andreas Føllesdal, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Daniel Behn, Taylor St John, Theresa Squatrito, and the reviewers of the NYIL for their useful comments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Kotschwar 2009, at 373–375; Miroudot 2011; Lee 2015, at 7–9; Lanyi and Steinbach 2017.

  2. 2.

    See Horn et al. 2010.

  3. 3.

    See Lim et al. 2012; Mathis 2012; Venzke 2016; Pantaleo et al. 2016.

  4. 4.

    Kotschwar 2009; Miroudot 2011; Baccini et al. 2011, at 18–21; He and Sappideen 2013; Lester et al. 2015.

  5. 5.

    Amtenbrink et al. 2018.

  6. 6.

    Miroudot 2011, at 307.

  7. 7.

    Wang 2011, at 494–497.

  8. 8.

    UNCTAD’s classification of ‘Treaties with Investment Provisions’ includes also PTAs that only mention investment promotion in a cursory manner (UNCTAD (2017) International Investment Agreements Navigator, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA, accessed 25 August 2017).

  9. 9.

    He and Sappideen 2013, at 215; Kotschwar 2009, at 366. The pre-NAFTA 1989 Canada-US FTA, which was subsequently replaced by NAFTA, dedicated Chapter Sixteen to Investment. The Agreement included two standards of treatment (national treatment and the prohibition of expropriation) but omitted MFN, FET, FPS and ISDS. See also Fontanelli and Bianco 2014, at 219.

  10. 10.

    See Fontanelli and Bianco 2014; Lévesque 2006. Alschner et al. 2017, at 19–20 conclude that many South-South PTAs also use NAFTA language.

  11. 11.

    Almost 300 regional trade agreements have been notified by WTO members (WTO (2017) RTA Database, https://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx, accessed 25 August 2017). ‘Due to its growing size and complexity, the PTA universe has become increasingly difficult to navigate.’ (See Alschner et al. 2017, at 3.)

  12. 12.

    See the various sources mentioned in Sects. 9.2.2–9.2.5. Examples include: Fontanelli and Bianco 2014; Ruse-Khan and Ononaiwu 2015; European Commission (2015) Investment in TTIP and Beyond - The Path to Reform, Concept Paper, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF, accessed 25 August 2017; 2004 Canadian Model Foreign Investment Protection Agreement, https://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017.

  13. 13.

    Examples of promissory language include the 1999 US-South Africa Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (‘US-South Africa TIFA’), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/tifa/asset_upload_file224_7728.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 1(2): ‘The Parties will seek to: (2) take appropriate measures to encourage and facilitate the exchange of goods and services’ (emphasis added); 2002 Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius (‘India-Mauritius Trade Agreement’), http://commerce.nic.in/trade/Mauritius.pdf, accessed 13 November 2017, Article II: ‘The Contracting Parties shall encourage and facilitate contacts between their natural and juridical persons’ (emphasis added). See also Gao 2015, at 80.

  14. 14.

    See Fontanelli and Bianco 2014.

  15. 15.

    Wang 2011; Ranjan 2015.

  16. 16.

    See Sect. 9.2.4(i).

  17. 17.

    Francis 2010, at 35–36; Alschner et al. 2017, at 25.

  18. 18.

    For similar approaches see Kotschwar 2009, at 370; Miroudot 2011; Mathis and Laurenza 2012; De Brabandere 2013, at 40–41; Fontanelli and Bianco 2014, at 213.

  19. 19.

    Office of the United States Trade Representative (2017) Free Trade Agreements, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/, accessed 25 August 2017. In alphabetical order, the FTAs with Australia (2004), Bahrain (2004), CAFTA-DR (2004), Chile (2003), Colombia (2006), Jordan (2000), Korea (2007), Morocco (2004), Oman (2006), Panama (2007), Peru (2006) and Singapore (2003).

  20. 20.

    Gantz 2004, at 680 and 711 on the influence of NAFTA case-law on subsequent agreements. See also Fontanelli and Bianco 2014, at 218.

  21. 21.

    2006 United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (‘US-Peru TPA’), https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/peru-tpa/final-text, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 10.6; 2007 United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (‘US-Panama TPA’), https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/panama-tpa/final-text, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 10.6.

  22. 22.

    See Watson 2015.

  23. 23.

    1999 United States-Bahrain Bilateral Investment Treaty, Treaty Doc 106-25 (‘US-Bahrain BIT’); 1997 United States-Jordan Bilateral Investment Treaty, Treaty Doc 106-30 (‘US-Jordan BIT’).

  24. 24.

    For an explanation of Australia’s policy towards ISDS, see Sect. 9.2.3(v).

  25. 25.

    Government of Canada (2017) Canada’s Free Trade Agreements, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fta-ale.aspx?lang=eng, accessed 25 August 2017. These are the FTAs with Korea (2014), Honduras (2013), Panama (2010), Jordan (2009), Colombia (2008), Peru (2008), EFTA (2008), Costa Rica (2001), Chile (1996) and Israel (1996).

  26. 26.

    The FTAs with the EU (CETA, 2016), the Ukraine (2016) and TPP (2016).

  27. 27.

    There are also several older Trade and Investment Cooperation (TICA) Agreements and Trade and Economic Cooperation Arrangements (TECA) that functioned more as initiators for further collaboration or set a framework for cooperation. These agreements have not been included in the study since they do not provide clear trade liberalisation commitments.

  28. 28.

    See R Willard, S Morreau (2015) The Canadian Model BIT – A Step on the Right Direction for Canadian Investment in Africa? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 18 July 2015, http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/07/18/the-canadian-model-bit-a-step-in-the-right-direction-for-canadian-investment-in-africa/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  29. 29.

    See 2010 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Panama (‘Canada-Panama FTA’), http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/panama/fta-ale/index.aspx?lang=eng, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 9.23; 1996 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Chile (‘Canada-Chile FTA’), http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/chile-chili/fta-ale/index.aspx?lang=eng, accessed 8 November 2017, Article G-023(2).

  30. 30.

    Lévesque 2006, at 250–251 and 254.

  31. 31.

    The FIPAs with Jordan (2009), Costa Rica (1998) and Ukraine (1994).

  32. 32.

    2007 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326/47 (‘TFEU’), Article 207; see Basedow 2016.

  33. 33.

    See Pantaleo 2014; Fontanelli and Bianco 2014, at 215–218.

  34. 34.

    See Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries, OJ L 351/40, Articles 7–11.

  35. 35.

    See Brown and Record 2015, at 42; Van Vooren and Wessel 2014, Chapter 15.

  36. 36.

    CJEU, Opinion 2/15 of the Court (Full Court), EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017.

  37. 37.

    On the insistence of Wallonia, Belgium has officially requested a CJEU Opinion on the compatibility of the investment court system (ICS) under CETA with EU law. See Kingdom of Belgium, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (2017) Minister Reynders Submits Request for Opinion on CETA, 6 September 2017, https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/newsroom/news/2017/minister_reynders_submits_request_opinion_ceta, accessed 8 November 2017.

  38. 38.

    S Gáspár-Szilágyi (2017) A Follow-up to the EU Commission’s Decision to ‘Split’ Trade and Investment Protection, International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 21 February 2017, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2017/09/guest-post-a-follow-up-to-the-eu-commissions-decision-to-split-trade-and-investment-protection.html, accessed 8 November 2017.

  39. 39.

    These are: FTAs and FTIAs with Korea (2009), Singapore (not signed), Canada (CETA, 2016), Vietnam (not signed); Colombia and Peru (2013, from 2016 also Ecuador); Association Agreements (AAs) that include Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs) with Georgia (2014), Moldova (2014), Ukraine (2014); Central America (2012); SAA with Kosovo (2015); PCA with Iraq (2012); Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) with Kazakhstan (2015); Interim Partnership Agreements with Papua New Guinea and Fiji (2009); Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ECOWAS (not signed), EAC (not signed) and SADC (2016); interim EPA with Cameroon (2009), Ghana (2016) and Madagascar (2009). See European Union External Action (2017) Treaties Office Database, http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/default.home.do, accessed 25 August 2017.

  40. 40.

    2016 CETA, EU-Vietnam and EU-Singapore.

  41. 41.

    Miroudot 2011, at 316. During the 27 February 2017 Stakeholder Meeting on ISDS, Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström stated that investment chapters with ISDS shall be included in all future EU FTAs.

  42. 42.

    Council of the European Union, Economic partnership agreement between the West African States, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, 2014/0265(NLE), 3 December 2014 (‘EU-ECOWAS EPA’), Article 106(2)e; European Commission (2015) Economic Partnership Agreement between the East African Community Partner States, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (‘EU-EAC EPA’), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153845.compressed.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 3(b)ii; 2014 Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, OJ L 261/4 (‘EU-Georgia AA’), Article 80(2); 2014 Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, OJ L 260/4 (‘EU-Moldova AA’), Article 206(2); 2014 Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, OJ L 161/3 (‘EU-Ukraine AA’), Article 89(2); 2012 Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other, OJ L 346/3 (‘EU-Central America AA’), Article 168; 2012/2016 Trade Agreement between Colombia, Peru and Ecuador and the European Union and its Member States, OJ L 354/3, Article 166, OJ L 356/1.

  43. 43.

    See CJEU, Opinion 2/15 of the Court (Full Court), 2017.

  44. 44.

    See TFEU, Article 217; Van Vooren and Wessel 2014, Chapter 5.

  45. 45.

    Even though in 2012 the US drafted a new model BIT, the agreements which entered into force in 2012 (US-Colombia, US-Korea, US-Panama) had been negotiated prior to the 2012 US Model BIT. No FTAs have yet to enter into force after 2012.

  46. 46.

    See European Commission (2015) Investment in TTIP and Beyond - The Path to Reform, Concept Paper. The goal of reforming ISDS is not restricted to Europe or North America. See for example the South American initiative to create a regional investment dispute settlement institution (Gómez and Titi 2016, at 518–522).

  47. 47.

    Department of Commerce, Government of India (2017) Trade Agreements, updated 8 November 2017, http://commerce.gov.in/InnerContent.aspx?Type=InternationalTrademenu&Id=32, accessed 8 November 2017. Two trade agreements, two framework agreements and four short bilateral trade agreements with African countries were excluded from the analysis due to an absence of substantive legal commitments to liberalise trade.

  48. 48.

    India-Sri Lanka (1998); Chile-India (2006).

  49. 49.

    India-South Africa (1994); India-Mongolia (1996); Bangladesh-India (2006).

  50. 50.

    Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India (2016) Impact of FTAs, 16 November 2016, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=153695, accessed 25 August 2017.

  51. 51.

    R Howse (2017) India Should Hold Firm against the European Efforts to Undermine Its New Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 21 February 2017, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2017/02/india-should-hold-firm-against-the-european-efforts-to-undermine-its-new-model-bilateral-investment-.html, accessed 25 August 2017.

  52. 52.

    2005 Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of India and the Republic of Singapore (‘India-Singapore CECA’), http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2707, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 6.21.

  53. 53.

    2010 Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of India (‘India-Malaysia CECA’), http://fta.miti.gov.my/miti-fta/resources/Malaysia-India/MICECA.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 10.14; 2011 Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of India and Japan (‘India-Japan CEPA’), http://commerce.nic.in/trade/IJCEPA_Basic_Agreement.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 96(4); 2014 Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of India and the Republic of Singapore (‘ASEAN–India CECA’), http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2707, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 20(7).

  54. 54.

    Ranjan 2015, at 928–929.

  55. 55.

    2010 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of Costa Rica (‘China-Costa Rica FTA’), http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/topic/encosta.shtml, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 89, linking to 2007 China-Costa Rica BIT; 2013 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Iceland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘China-Iceland FTA’), https://www.mfa.is/media/fta-kina/Iceland-China.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 92, linking to 1994 China-Iceland BIT.

  56. 56.

    2015 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘China-Australia FTA’), http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/official-documents/Documents/chafta-agreement-text.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 9.9(2).

  57. 57.

    2008 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Singapore (‘China-Singapore FTA’), http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/singapore/doc/cs_xieyi_en.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 84, referring to the ongoing negotiations of the ASEAN-China Investment Agreement.

  58. 58.

    Wang 2011, at 497.

  59. 59.

    See 2009 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Peru (‘China-Peru FTA’), http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/bilu/annex/bilu_xdwb_en.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 139; 2009 Agreement on Investment of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Between the Republic of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (‘ASEAN-China Agreement on Investment’), http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/inforimages/200908/20090817113007764.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 14; China-Australia FTA, Article 9.12(4).

  60. 60.

    Wang 2011, at 502–503.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    ASEAN-China Agreement on Investment, Article 4; China-Australia FTA, Article 9.3; 2015 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Korea (‘China-Korea FTA’), http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/korea/annex/xdzw_en.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 12.3.

  63. 63.

    Wang 2011, at 503.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., at 498–499. On the evolution of Chinese investment agreements, see Fontanelli and Bianco 2014, at 238–239.

  65. 65.

    ASEAN Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (1987) and the Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area (1998). See also P Malanczuk (2011) Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, updated May 2011, http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e898?rskey=Gk2eXt&result=2&prd=EPIL, accessed 25 August 2017, paras 24–29; Tevini 2013.

  66. 66.

    NT (Article 5), MFN (Article 6), FET and FPS (Article 11), protections against expropriation (Article 16) and others.

  67. 67.

    2009 ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (‘ACIA’), http://www.asean.org/storage/images/2013/economic/aia/ACIA_Final_Text_26%20Feb%202009.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 33(1). The Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration also appears in 2005 Agreement between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Japan for an Economic Partnership (‘Malaysia-Japan EPA’), http://fta.miti.gov.my/miti-fta/resources/auto%20download%20images/55894af110378.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 85.

  68. 68.

    2008 Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership among Japan and Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (‘ASEAN-Japan CEPA’), http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/asean/agreement.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 51.

  69. 69.

    The Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area (1998) was excluded from the first group, while the framework agreements with China (2002), Japan (2003), India (2004), Korea (2005) and the US (2006) were excluded from the second.

  70. 70.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2002) Japan’s FTA Strategy, October 2002, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/strategy0210.html, accessed 25 August 2017.

  71. 71.

    These are the EPAs with Mexico (2005), Malaysia (2006), Chile (2007), Thailand (2007), Indonesia (2007), Brunei (2008), Singapore (2006), ASEAN (2007), Philippines (2006), Switzerland (2009), Vietnam (2009), India (2011), Peru (2011), Australia (2014) and Mongolia (2015). Japan is also negotiating EPAs with Canada, Colombia, the Golf Cooperation Council, the EU and South Korea. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2017) Economic Policy, Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), 12 October 2017, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  72. 72.

    2009 Agreement on Free Trade and Economic Partnership between Japan and the Swiss Confederation (‘Japan-Switzerland EPA’), http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/switzerland/epa0902/agreement.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Article 92.

  73. 73.

    Kurtz and Nottage 2015, at 466.

  74. 74.

    See Nottage 2013, at 255–258; He and Sappideen 2013, at 232.

  75. 75.

    These are the FTAs with Singapore (2003), Thailand (2003), US (2004), Chile (2008), ASEAN/AANZFTA (2009), Malaysia (2012), Korea (2014), Japan (2014) and China (2015) and the TPP (2016). The ones with the US, China, Japan and ASEAN appear in those sections as well. See Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2017) Free Trade Agreements, http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/pages/trade-agreements.aspx, accessed 25 August 2017.

  76. 76.

    Still, Article 11.6 does envisage the possibility of the future setting up of an ISDS.

  77. 77.

    K Tienhaara, P Ranald (2011) Australia’s Rejection of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Four Potential Contributing Factors, Investment Treaty News, 12 July 2011, http://www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/australias-rejection-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-four-potential-contributing-factors/, accessed 25 August 2017; Kurtz and Nottage 2015, at 469.

  78. 78.

    See Nottage 2013, at 255–258; He and Sappideen 2013, at 232.

  79. 79.

    Australia does not have pre-existing BITs with these countries. See UNCTAD (2013) Australian BITs, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/11, accessed 25 August 2017.

  80. 80.

    Kurtz and Nottage 2015, at 468.

  81. 81.

    Barreiro and Lemos Daniela 2013, at 6.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., at 13 et seq.

  83. 83.

    Gómez and Titi 2016, at 522–524; J de Paiva Muniz, L Peretti (2015) Brazil Signs New Bilateral Investment Treaties with Mozambique and Angola: New Approach to BITs or ‘Toothless Lions’? Global Arbitration News, 7 April 2015, https://globalarbitrationnews.com/20150407-brazil-signs-new-bilateral-investment-treaties/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  84. 84.

    The treaty with MERCOSUR (1996) will be presented below together with other regional treaties, while PTAs with Canada (1996), India and US (both 2003), China (2005), Japan (2007) and Australia (2008) are reviewed together with these countries respectively. The Chile-EU Association Agreement that includes a comprehensive FTA (2003) was concluded before the Lisbon Agreement and therefore excluded from the analysis (see Sect. 9.2.2 above).

  85. 85.

    See FTAs between Chile and Mexico (1998), Korea (2003), Peru (2006) and Colombia (2006). The latest plurilateral agreement of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, the Pacific Alliance FTA (2014), also contains a broad investment chapter.

  86. 86.

    1999 Free Trade Agreement between Central America and Chile (‘Chile - Central America FTA’), http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/chicam/Text.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Articles 10.01–10.02.

  87. 87.

    2006 Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Panama (‘Chile-Panama FTA’), http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/CHL_PAN_FTA/TLC-Chile-Panama.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Articles 9.2.

  88. 88.

    See FTAs between Chile and Turkey (2009), Malaysia (2010), Vietnam (2011), Hong Kong, China (2012) and Thailand (2013).

  89. 89.

    Gómez and Titi 2016, at 530; Tavassi 2013, at 366.

  90. 90.

    1996 Free Trade Agreement between Chile and MERCOSUR (‘Chile-MERCOSUR FTA’), ACE No. 35, Article 41; 1996 Economic Complementation Agreement between Bolivia and MERCOSUR (‘Bolivia-MERCOSUR ECA’), ACE No. 36, Articles 35–36; 2005 Free Trade Agreement between MERCOSUR and Peru (‘MERCOSUR-Peru FTA’), ACE No. 58, Articles 29–30; 2010 Free Trade Agreement between MERCOSUR and the Arab Republic of Egypt (‘Egypt-MERCOSUR FTA’), http://www.jmcti.org/kaigai/Latin/2010/2010_09/2010_09_Ms01.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017, Articles 23.

  91. 91.

    See Ruse-Khan and Ononaiwu 2015, at 146–149.

  92. 92.

     1994 Agreement on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation between CARICOM and Colombia (‘CARICOM–Colombia ATEC’), AAP.A25TM No. 31, Articles 1 and 18.

  93. 93.

     1998 Free Trade Agreement between CARICOM and the Dominican Republic (‘CARICOM-Dominican Republic FTA’), Annex III, http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/Ccdr/English/Annexes/Annx_III_e.pdf, accessed 8 November 2017; 2000 Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Government of the Republic of Cuba (‘CARICOM-Cuba TECA’), http://mfaft.gov.jm/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CARICOM-Cuba.pdf, accessed 13 November 2017, Annex A.

  94. 94.

    CARICOM-Dominican Republic FTA, Annex III, Article VIII.

  95. 95.

    CARICOM-CUBA TECA, Annex A, Article XII.

  96. 96.

    Export Promotion Council of Kenya (2017) Trade Agreements, http://epckenya.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=70, accessed 25 August 2017.

  97. 97.

    The Government of Kenya’s website only includes the names of the agreements, not their texts. The WTO RTA Database does not include RTAs with Kenya. The UNCTAD database under ‘Treaties with Investment Provisions’ (TIPs) only includes agreements to which Kenya is a party via its membership to REIOs, such as COMESA.

  98. 98.

    Department of Trade and Industry, Republic of South Africa (2017) Trade Agreements, https://www.thedti.gov.za/trade_investment/ited_trade_agreement.jsp, accessed 25 August 2017. These are 1996 Zimbabwe-South Africa, 1999 Trade and Development Cooperation Agreement with the EU, 2002 South African Customs Union Agreement (SACU), 2006 EFTA-SACU (2006), 2008 SACU-MERCOSUR and 2016 EU-SADC. The TIFA and TIDCA between South Africa and the US were not included due to their hortatory and exploratory character. Neither were two non-reciprocal trade agreements included.

  99. 99.

    These are the FTAs with the EU/EC (1996), the Pan-Arab Free Trade Area (1997), the US (2004), the Agadir Agreement (2004), EFTA (1997) and Turkey (2004).

  100. 100.

    2003 ECOWAS Energy Protocol, A/P4/1/03.

  101. 101.

    1993 Treaty establishing the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, 33 ILM 1067 (1994) (‘COMESA Treaty’), Articles 159(1)(a) and 159(3).

  102. 102.

    Ibid., Chapter III.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., Chapter V, Article 26.

  104. 104.

    Páez 2017, at 389.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., at 394–398.

  106. 106.

    Gao 2015, at 89.

  107. 107.

    Section 9.2.2(i) United States.

  108. 108.

    Section 9.2.2(ii) Canada.

  109. 109.

    Section 9.2.3(iv) Japan.

  110. 110.

    European Commission (2015) Investment in TTIP and Beyond - The Path to Reform, Concept Paper.

  111. 111.

    Wang 2011, at 509–511.

  112. 112.

    Lee 2015, at 9; Horn 2010, at 1587.

  113. 113.

    Wang 2011, at 511–513.

  114. 114.

    In the United States this problem does not occur since the power over external affairs is vested exclusively in the Federal Government (mainly the President and in some instances the US Congress. See US Constitution, Articles I Section 8, II Section 2 Clause 2). See United States v Belmont, US Supreme Court, Judgement, 301 U.S. 324, 3 May 1937, at 328–332. Furthermore, US Constitution, Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 prohibits State governments to enter into any treaties, alliances or confederations.

  115. 115.

    TFEU, Article 207 for FTAs that also cover FDIs; TFEU, Article 217 for Association Agreements.

  116. 116.

    Gómez and Titi 2016, at 523.

  117. 117.

    The 1993 Colonia Protocol on Promotion and Protection of Investments Coming from Non-MERCOSUR States and the 1994 Buenos Aires Protocol on the Promotion and Protection of intra-MERCUSOR investments have included the traditional investment protection standards and ISDS but never came into force (see Fry and Stampalija 2012). In 2015 Brazil proposed the negotiation of an intra-MERCOSUR investment agreement based on its CFIAs that excludes ISDS.

  118. 118.

    Kurtz and Nottage 2015, at 466; D Vis-Dunbar (2009) NGOs claim the Philippine-Japan free trade agreement is unconstitutional, Investment Treaty News, 8 June 2009, https://www.iisd.org/itn/2009/06/05/ngos-claim-the-philippine-japan-free-trade-agreement-is-unconstitutional/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  119. 119.

    See Kantor 2012.

  120. 120.

    See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final, 7 July 2010, at 6.

  121. 121.

    See Bungenberg and Reinisch 2014, at 377–378.

  122. 122.

    H von der Burchard (2017) EU Makes Big Step toward Setting Investor Court as Global Norm, Politico, 2 February 2017, http://www.politico.eu/pro/trump-effect-pushes-singapore-toward-investment-court-reform/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  123. 123.

    Allee and Elsig 2016. Alschner et al. argue that powerful states adapt their PTAs strategically to their negotiation partner, rather than following a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach used for BITs. Nonetheless, more recent PTAs of the US feature much higher similarity (Alschner et al. 2017, at 12–13).

  124. 124.

    Allee and Elsig 2016, at 2 and 24.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., at 18.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., at 3.

  127. 127.

    See Sect. 9.2.2(i).

  128. 128.

    See Sect. 9.2.2(ii) and 9.2.3(iv).

  129. 129.

    Ranjan 2015, at 928.

  130. 130.

    Wang 2011.

  131. 131.

    Kurtz and Nottage 2015, at 468.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., at 466.

  133. 133.

    D Vis-Dunbar (2009) NGOs claim the Philippine-Japan free trade agreement is unconstitutional.

  134. 134.

    See Putnam 1988, 439–440. Adding a non-negotiable issue to the agenda can also cause the collapse of the entire negotiations (see Davis 2004, at 156).

  135. 135.

    See Wells and Tsuchiya 2012.

  136. 136.

    One can for example think of the more recent Wallonian ‘rebellion’ against ISDS in CETA and the upset it caused with the Canadian side. See H von der Burchard, C Oliver (2016) Walloon revolt against Canada deal torpedoes EU trade policy, Politico, 17 August 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-regional-government-set-to-block-eu-canada-trade-deal/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  137. 137.

    See Wallace 1976, at 169–170.

  138. 138.

    Tollison and Willet 1979, at 426. Nonetheless, just because two policy areas appear in one agreement does not necessarily mean there is issue linkage. See Maggi 2016, at 517.

  139. 139.

    Putnam 1988, at 434. For an overview of subsequent literature that built on Putnam’s model, see Enia 2009, at 368–369.

  140. 140.

    Enia 2009, at 360–368.

  141. 141.

    Due to constraints of space we have slightly simplified the scenarios.

  142. 142.

    Gao 2015, at 80.

  143. 143.

    Lee 2015, at 1. In the case of this agreement there have been other domestic concerns in Korea.

  144. 144.

    Lewis 2015, at 118.

  145. 145.

    S Marks, C Oliver (2016) Belgium’s Wallons cave on EU-Canada Trade Deal, Politico, 27 October 2016, http://www.politico.eu/article/belgiums-walloons-cave-on-eu-canada-trade-deal/, accessed 25 August 2017.

  146. 146.

    European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Report: Online Public Consultation on Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), SWD(2015) 3 final, 13 January 2015.

  147. 147.

    Council of the European Union, Recommendation from the Commission to the Council in order to authorize the Commission to open negotiations for an Economic Integration Agreement with Canada, 9036/09, 24 April 2009. Following the Lisbon changes, investment was also added to the CETA Negotiating Directive. See Council of the European Union, Recommendation from the Commission to the Council on the modification of the negotiating directives for an Economic Integration Agreement with Canada in order to authorise the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Union, on investment, 12838/11, 14 July 2011. Even though the initial text was concluded in 2014, the EU decided to add changes to the ISDS mechanism in late 2015, and the final text was thus agreed in February 2016.

  148. 148.

    European Commission (2017) DG Trade, Singapore, Documents archive, updated 8 November 2017, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/cfm/doclib_section.cfm?sec=709, accessed 8 November 2017. See H von der Burchard (2017) EU Makes Big Step toward Setting Investor Court as Global Norm.

  149. 149.

    Brown and Record 2015, at 41.

  150. 150.

    J Pauwelyn (2016) If Wallonia Blocks CETA Because of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Why not Take ISDS out of CETA? International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 26 October 2016, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2016/10/if-wallonia-blocks-ceta-because-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds-why-not-take-isds-out-of-ceta.html, accessed 25 August 2017.

  151. 151.

    Under the new approach the revised CETA text includes a clear recognition of the right to regulate of the contracting parties in the investment chapter, a two-tier dispute settlement system with an Appellate Tribunal, the objective to create a multilateral Investment Court and safeguards concerning domestic law. See European Commission (2016) CETA: EU and Canada agree on new approach on investment in trade agreement, 29 February 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1468, accessed 25 August 2017.

  152. 152.

    Putnam 1988, at 439–440. Adding a non-negotiable issue to the agenda can also cause the collapse of the entire negotiations. See Davis 2004, at 156.

  153. 153.

    2009 Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Turkey (‘Chile-Turkey FTA’), http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/CHL_TUR_Final/Text_FTA_e.pdf, accessed 10 November 2017, Article 61; 2010 Malaysia-Chile Free Trade Agreement (‘Chile-Malaysia FTA’), http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/CHL_MYS/CHL_MYS_FTA_e/Full_text.pdf, accessed 10 November 2017, Article 14.5.

  154. 154.

    Hoffmann et al. 2013, at 15.

  155. 155.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the Future European International Investment Policy, P7 TA(2011)0141, 6 April 2011, point 16. Currently, Unit B2 under DG Trade is tasked with investment matters (see European Commission (2009) Trade organisation chart, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/december/tradoc_145610.pdf, accessed 16 March 2017).

  156. 156.

    Vandevelde 1992, at 30.

  157. 157.

    Baetens 2013, at 101.

  158. 158.

    Other authors have already noted that international economic agreements are increasingly used as tools to achieve more coherence in a state’s foreign economic policy (see Chilton 2015). The European Commission’s 2006 Global Europe Communication speaks of the need to build a ‘comprehensive, integrated and forward-looking external trade policy’ of the EU with the help of FTAs that ‘must be comprehensive in scope’ (European Commission (2006) Global Europe Competing in the World: A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/october/tradoc_130376.pdf, accessed 25 August 2017, at 9–10).

  159. 159.

    See Schlütter 2012.

  160. 160.

    See Ulfstein 2012, at 429–430. For a classification of treaty bodies (commissions or committees), see Schermers and Blokker 2011, paras 421–431, who classify them into functional, consultative, ad hoc advisory, procedural and regional commissions. See also Gáspár-Szilágyi 2017.

  161. 161.

    2016 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member Stats, of the other part, OJ L 11/23 (‘CETA’), Article 26.1; 2014 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea (‘Canada-Korea FTA’), http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/3076, accessed 10 November 2017, Article 20.1; 2013 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras (‘Canada-Honduras FTA’), http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/honduras/fta-ale/index.aspx?lang=eng, accessed 10 November 2017, Article 21.1; Canada-Panama FTA, Article 21.01; 2006 United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (‘US-Colombia PTA’) https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/colombia-fta/final-text, accessed 13 November 2017, Article 20.1; 2006 United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement (‘US-Oman FTA’), https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/oman-fta/final-text, accessed 13 November 2017, Article 19.2; 2005 Dominican Republic–Central America–United States Free-Trade Agreement (‘CAFTA-DR’), https://wits.worldbank.org/GPTAD/PDF/archive/UnitedStates-DominicanRepublic(CAFTA).pdf, accessed 1 November 2017, Article 19.1; 2004 Agreement between Japan and the United Mexican States for the Strengthening of the Economic Partnership (‘Japan-Mexico EPA’), http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/latin/mexico/agreement/pdfs/epa1203.pdf, accessed 13 November 2013, Article 165; 2005 Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of Malaysia for an Economic Partnership (‘Japan-Malaysia), accessed 13 November 2017, Article 13. For a further discussion, see Gáspár-Szilágyi 2017.

  162. 162.

    Canada-Korea FTA, Annex 20-A; Canada-Honduras FTA, Article 21.1.7; Canada-Panama FTA, Annex 21.01; US-Colombia TPA, Article 20.1.3; CAFTA-DR, Article 19.1.3; Japan-Mexico EPA, Articles 19, 37, 103 and 117; Japan-Malaysia EPA, Articles 14, 25, 49, 58, 65, 70, 93, 110, 129, 134 and 143. See also Ulfstein 2012, at 430.

  163. 163.

    CETA, Article 26.2; European Commission (2015) EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: Authentic text as of May 2015, 29 June 2015 (‘EU-Singapore FTA’), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961, accessed 10 November 2017, Article 17.2.1; European Commission (2016) EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement: Agreed text as of January 2016, 1 February 2016 (‘EU-Vietnam FTA’), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437, accessed 10 November 2017, Chapter XX, Article 9.2.1.

  164. 164.

    CETA, Article 26.2(b) ‘Committee on Services and Investment’, Article 17.2.1(d) ‘Committee on Trade in Services, Investment and Government Procurement’; EU-Vietnam FTA, Chapter XX, Article 9.2.1(b) ‘Committee on Services, Investment and Government Procurement’.

  165. 165.

    Canada-Honduras FTA, Article 21.3.

  166. 166.

    See Brower 2006; Kaufmann-Kohler 2011.

  167. 167.

    Not to be confused with the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.

  168. 168.

    For a comprehensive review of literature, see Hoffmann et al. 2013, at 15, footnote 23.

  169. 169.

    Dolzer and Schreuer 2012, at 204–206; Muchlinski 2013, at 220–221.

  170. 170.

    Baetens 2013, at 96.

  171. 171.

    Ibid.; De Brabandere 2013, at 65–66.

  172. 172.

    For an overview of cases, see Lévesque 2015, at 376–386.

  173. 173.

    Braun 2013, at 138–141.

  174. 174.

    Pauwelyn 2015.

  175. 175.

    Ibid., at 800.

  176. 176.

    For trade DSB see European Commission (2015) Textual Proposal: Dispute Settlement, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153032.pdf, accessed 25 August 2017, Article 22.2; CETA, Article 29.8; EU-Vietnam FTA, Chapter […] Dispute Settlement, Articles 23.2. For ISDS, see European Commission (2015) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Trade in Services, Investment and E-Commerce, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/september/tradoc_153807.pdf, accessed 25 August 2017, Article 9.4; CETA, Article 8.27; EU-Vietnam FTA, Chapter II, Article 12.

References

  • Allee T, Elsig M (2016) Are the Contents of International Treaties Copied-and-Pasted? Evidence from Preferential Trade Agreements. World Trade Institute NCCR Working Paper 2016/8. http://www.wti.org/research/publications/998/are-the-contents-of-international-treaties-copied-and-pasted-unique-evidence-from-preferential-trade-agreements/. Accessed 23 August 2017

  • Alschner W, Seiermann J, Skougarevskiy D (2017) Text-as-Data Analysis of Preferential Trade Agreements: Mapping the PTA Landscape. UNCTAD Research Paper No 5. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ser_rp2017d5_en.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2017

  • Amtenbrink F, Prévost D, Wessel RA (eds) (2018) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017, Vol. 48. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccini L, Dür A, Elsig M, Milewicz K (2011) The Design of Preferential Trade Agreements: A New Dataset in the Making. WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2011-10. http://www.academia.edu/2918412/The_design_of_preferential_trade_agreements_A_new_dataset_in_the_Making. Accessed 23 August 2017

  • Baetens F (2013) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements and the Trade/Investment Divide: Is the Whole More than the Sum of Its Parts? In: Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 91–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreiro L, Lemos Daniela C (2013) The Non-Ratification of Bilateral Investment Treaties in Brazil: A Story of Conflict in a Land of Cooperation. SSRN Scholarly Paper 6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243120. Accessed 23 August 2017

  • Basedow R (2016) A Legal History of the EU’s International Investment Policy. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 17(5):743–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun TR (2013) Investment Chapters in Future European Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: Two Universes or an Integrated Model? In: Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 129–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower CH II (2006) Why the FTC Notes of Interpretation Constitute a Partial Amendment of NAFTA Article 1105. Virginia Journal of International Law 46:347–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown CM, Record J (2015) EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In: Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 39–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (2014) Special Issue: The Anatomy of the (Invisible) EU Model BIT. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 15:375–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilton AS (2015) The Politics of the United States’ Bilateral Investment Treaty Program. Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 722. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2409&context=law_and_economics. Accessed 23 August 2017

  • Davis CL (2004) International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization. American Political Science Review 98(1):153–169

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabandere E (2013) Co-existence, Complementarity or Conflict? Interaction Between Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements and Bilateral Investment Treaties. In: Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 37–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Enia JS (2009) Sequencing Negotiating Partners: Implications for the Two-Level Game. Negotiation Journal 25(3):357–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontanelli F, Bianco G (2014) Converging towards NAFTA: An Analysis of FTA Investment Chapters in the European Union and the United States. Stanford Journal of International Law 50:211–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis S (2010) Foreign Direct Investment Concepts: Implications for Negotiations. Economic and Political Weekly 45(2):31–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry JD, Stampalija JI (2012) Towards an Agreement on Investment in Mercosur: Conflict and Complementarity of International Investment Law and International Trade-in-Services Law. Journal of World Investment & Trade 13:556–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Gantz DA (2004) The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement. American University International Law Review 19:679–767

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao H (2015) China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. In: Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 77–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Gáspár-Szilágyi S (2017) Binding Committee Interpretations in the EU’s New Free Trade and Investment Agreements. European Investment Law and Arbitration Review 2:90–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez KF, Titi C (2016) International Investment Law and ISDS: Mapping Contemporary Latin America. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 17:515–535

    Google Scholar 

  • He LL, Sappideen R (2013) Investor-State Arbitration under Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreements: Finding Rhythm in Inconsistent Drumbeats. Journal of World Trade 47(1):215–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (2013) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. In: Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 9–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn H, Mavroidis PC, Sapir S (2010) Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements. The World Economy 33:1565–1588

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantor M (2012) Little Has Changed in the New US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. ICSID Review 27(2):335–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G (2011) Interpretive Powers of the Free Trade Commission and the Rule of Law. In: Gaillard E, Bachard F (eds) Fifteen Years of NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration. JurisNet, Huntington, 175–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotschwar B (2009) Mapping Investment Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Towards an International Investment Regime? In: Estevadeordal A, Suominen K, Teh R (eds) Regional Rules in the Global Trading System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 365–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J, Nottage L (2015) Investment Treaty Arbitration ‘Down Under’: Policy and Politics in Australia. ICSID Review 30(2):465–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanyi PA, Steinbach A (2017) Promoting Coherence between PTAs and the WTO through Systemic Integration. Journal of International Economic Law (forthcoming). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2905375. Accessed 13 March 2017

  • Lee Y (2015) The United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In: Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) (2015) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque C (2006) Influences on the Canadian FIPA and the US Model BIT: NAFTA Chapter 11 and Beyond. Canadian Yearbook of International Law 44:249–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque C (2015) Chapter 10 - Inconsistency in Investor-State Awards and the Role of State Interpretations: The Example of the Mexican Sweetener Trio of Cases under NAFTA. In: Bjorklund AK (ed) Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2013–2014. Oxford University Press, New York, 361–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis MK (2015) The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA). In: Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 114–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (eds) (2012) The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Quest for a Twenty-first Century Trade Agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggi G (2016) Issue Linkage. In: Bagwell K, Staiger RW (eds) The Handbook of Commercial Policy. Elsevier, North Holland, 513–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis J (2012) Multilateral Aspects of Advanced Regulatory Cooperation: Considerations for a Canada-EU Comprehensive Trade Agreement (CETA). Legal Issues of Economic Integration 39(1):73–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis J, Laurenza E (2012) Services and Investment in the EU - South Korea Free-Trade Area: Implications of a New Approach for GATS V Agreements and for Bilateral Investment Treaties. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 13:157–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Miroudot S (2011) Investment. In: Maur J, Chauffour J (eds) Preferential Trade Agreement Policies for Development: A Handbook. World Bank, Washington DC, 307–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2013) The Role of Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements in International Investment Law: From Unforeseen Historical Developments to an Uncertain Future. In: Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 211–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Nottage L (2013) Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Australia’s New Policy on Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration and its Impact in Asia. Asian Studies Review 37(2):253–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Páez L (2017) Bilateral Investment Treaties and Regional Investment Regulation in Africa: Towards a Continental Investment Area. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 18:379–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantaleo L (2014) Member States Prior Agreements and Newly Attributed Competence: What Lesson From Foreign Investment. European Foreign Affairs Review 19(2):307–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantaleo L, Douma W, Takács T (2016) Tiptoeing to TTIP: What Kind of Agreement for What Kind of Partnership? CLEER Working Papers 2016/1. http://www.asser.nl/media/3005/cleer16-1_complete_web.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2017

  • Pauwelyn J (2015) The Rule of Law without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators Are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators from Venus. The American Journal of International Law 109(4):761–805

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam RD (1988) Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organizations 42(3):427–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranjan P (2015) Comparing Investment Provisions in India’s FTAs with India’s Stand-Alone BITs: Contributing to the Evolution of New Indian BIT Practice. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 16:899–930

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse-Khan HG, Ononaiwu C (2015) The CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement. In: Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 133–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermers HG, Blokker NM (2011) International Institutional Law, 5th edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlütter B (2012) Aspects of Human Rights Interpretation by the UN Treaty Bodies. In: Keller H, Ulfstein G (eds) UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 261–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Tevini AG (2013) Regional Investment Protection and Liberalization within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In: Hoffmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 335–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollison RD, Willet TD (1979) An Economic Theory of Mutually Advantageous Issue Linkages in International Negotiations. International Organization 33(4):425–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulfstein G (2012) Treaty Bodies and Regime. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 428–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vooren B, Wessel R (2014) EU External Relation Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde KJ (1992) United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Venzke I (2016) Investor-State Dispute Settlement in TTIP from the Perspective of a Public Law Theory of International Adjudication. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 17(3):374–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace W (1976) Atlantic Relations: Policy, Co-ordination and Conflict: Issue Linkage among Atlantic Governments. International Affairs 52(2):163–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang G (2011) China’s FTAs: Legal Characteristics and Implications. American Journal of International Law 105:493–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson KW (2015) United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. In: Lester S, Mercurio B, Bartels L (eds) Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 60–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells LT Jr, Tsuchiya C (2012) Japanese Multinationals in Foreign Disputes: Do They Behave Differently and Does It Matter for Host Countries? In: Sauvant KP (ed) The Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2010/2011. Oxford University Press, New York, 715–739

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Enterprise Liability (CEVIA), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Maksim Usynin

  2. PluriCourts Centre of Excellence, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi

Authors
  1. Maksim Usynin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maksim Usynin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Fabian Amtenbrink

  2. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Denise Prévost

  3. Centre for European Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Ramses A. Wessel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Usynin, M., Gáspár-Szilágyi, S. (2018). The Growing Tendency of Including Investment Chapters in PTAs. In: Amtenbrink, F., Prévost, D., Wessel, R. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 48. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-243-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-243-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-242-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-243-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation