Over the past decade, the backlash against investment arbitration has become worldwide and correspondingly the investment treaty reform has been undertaken at multiple levels. In this context, a multilateral investment agreement (“MIA”) has been called for as a global effort to address the global backlash. Arguably, the current condition for a MIA might be more favorable than before, as the interests of developed countries and developing countries have changed. After examining the need of a MIA for the global backlash, this paper attempts to explore China’s recent practice in this aspect, including that (1) China’s changing interest in outward foreign direct investment and investment treaty practice reflect the changing landscape of international investment law; (2) the 2016 G20 under China’s presidency achieved the Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking; and (3) China has joined to work on a multilateral framework on investment facilitation at the WTO.

The impending British exit (Brexit) from the European Union has placed the UK’s investment policy at a crossroads. A post-Brexit UK will now have to reorganise its investment relationships with its economic partners through bespoke UK IIAs. This exercise will have to accommodate the shifting zeitgeist concerning the balance of investors’ rights and the right to regulate IIAs that is expected. This paper examines the continued relevance of the recently minted Investment Protection Chapter in the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, acknowledged by Britain’s power brokers, as a persuasive model for the UK to emulate for this purpose. This is notwithstanding the uncertainties that now surround the implementation and efficacy of the Agreement in light of Brexit and a pending decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such emulation would ultimately make for a better Investor-State Dispute Settlement System in the UK IIAs by providing a much needed update to its old investment treaty architecture.

Canada and China’s new Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (“CC-FIPA”) came into force on October 1, 2014. This work discusses some of the main benefits to be gained from building stronger investment relations between Canada- China, as well as a Canadian perspective on the main investment risks that are most likely to impede either country from achieving the full potential in their investment relations. Against this backdrop, this work then examines those provisions in the CCFIPA that are most central to promoting Canada-China investment benefits, as well as those provisions that are most relevant to protecting against the investment risks in Canada-China relations.

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.

Cooperation between China and the ASEAN has become more integrated as their common economic interests have been increasing due to globalization and recent changes in Southeast Asia. The formation and operation of the CAFTA provide incentive for investment and trade between China and the ASEAN. The objective of laws regulating to investment should promote investment, which can be realized through a liberal, facilitative and transparent investment regime. The CAFTA’s investment regime continues along with the same trends of international investment agreements in general. However, in order to encourage regional integration, it needs to be improved in future practice.

The entry into force of the Japan-Indonesia Economic Partnership Agreement on July 1, 2008, is highly expected to boost Japan’s investment in Indonesia due to the fact that it is the most comprehensive bilateral agreement between the two countries. The JIEPA covers most areas of economic cooperation, including: taxation, trade in goods, trade in services, movement of natural persons, government procurement, intellectual property, investment etc. Some potential legal issues are anticipated during the implementation of the JIEPA due to some differences between the JIEPA and the Indonesian legal system. This article focuses on issues related to foreign investment related law, namely: instrument of ratification and its legal implications; review mechanism; legal certainty; continuation of business activities; termination of business activities; protection and guarantee of foreign investment such as minimum standard of treatment; investment risks; and disputes settlement mechanism.