This article examines two questions: (1) whether the Production Sharing Contract in oil and gas sectors between different countries should be considered as an international agreement or a private agreement; and (2) how to formulate uplift in the PSC which contains the value of equity for investors and the State. In the Production Sharing Contract, there is problem of setting the tax on oil and gas sector particularly uplift policy relating to the taxation of income in the state revenue sources. This issue is related to the return of controversy of operational costs recognized by the contractor (cost recovery claim). This tax controversy gave rise to uplift that is only levied on oil and gas State owned Enterprises contracting partners in the scheme of the Joint Operating Body, especially in the old fields with advanced technology (Enhanced Oil Recovery). The controversy is related to the declining production and increased production costs that are recognized by the contractor.

The 47th Session of the UNCITRAL finalized the draft Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. It aims to provide a mechanism to allow the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency to be applied to investment dispute arbitrations mandated by investment treaties concluded before April 1, 2014. This paper intends to examine these UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency and the draft Convention on Transparency. It is particularly in contrast with the relevant rules in the NAFTA, the U.S. Model BIT 2012 and the ICSID Rules 2006, to see if transparency can be enhanced in treaty-based investor-State arbitrations and to extrapolate the implications of the Rules on Transparency and the draft Convention for China’s strategy in BIT or FTA negotiations amid the trendy advancement of transparency standards.