Two of my recent articles in this area are now freely available in Open Access. The first below develops with Nobumichi Teramura an empirical argument comparing corruption-related provisions in IIAs across Asian states, including Japan as a very interesting case, building on our co-edited 2024 book. The other looks at wider regional developments around dispute resolution mechanisms in such agreements, including more focus on Australia. Both states have an opportunity to show regional and indeed global leadership for such mechanisms.
- Nobumichi Teramura, Luke Nottage, Corruption-related provisions in East and South Asian investment agreements: an empirical analysis, Journal of International Economic Law, 2025; jgaf013, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaf013
This article analyses two types of provisions relevant to corruption in Asian international investment agreements (IIAs): clauses requiring (host) states to enforce anti-corruption laws and clauses that protect foreign investments made in accordance with host state laws. It tests whether IIA drafters act rationally regarding such clauses, or instead show status quo or other biases. This is complex first because rational strategies should depend on whether the state is a net exporter of foreign direct investment (FDI) or a net importer, but we explain how determining this status may be difficult. Secondly, rational strategies should depend on the relative extent of corruption in each state and, somewhat relatedly, the extent of inbound FDI claims. Despite such complexities and some instances of more ‘bounded’ rationality, overall states seem to be drafting both types of clauses rationally—even, and indeed especially, the net-FDI-importing states that tend to be transitioning economies. Adding to that empirical result from a more normative perspective, the article helps identify factors that could or should be considered by future IIA drafters, international bodies, or others tracking the trajectories of IIAs and corruption in Asia and beyond.
2. Luke Nottage, Australia’s Ambivalence Again Around Investor-State Arbitration: Comparisons with Europe and Implications for Asia, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Volume 39, Issue 2, Spring 2024, Pages 320–346, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siae029
In late 2022 Australia’s new Labor government declared that it would no longer agree to investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) in future international investment agreements (IIAs). Section I reviews its previous anti-ISDS stance (governing with the Greens over 2011 to 2013) inspired by more articulated policy rationales but also the first claim against Australia, over tobacco plain packaging legislation. Then followed the centre-right coalition government’s return to including ISDS on a case-by-case assessment (2014–21) drawing partly on different arguments and evidence. Section II suggests that a new factor behind the latest policy shift comprises a second set of significant ISDS arbitration claims against Australia, from the Singaporean subsidiary of an Australian mining magnate and right-wing political leader. Section III draws parallels with the European Union (EU), whose developed economy member States reacted to inbound ISDS claims by replacing traditional ISDS from 2015 with an ‘investment court’ hybrid process, then influencing multilateral ISDS reform negotiations. Intra-EU ISDS claims are also being precluded by the Court of Justice of the EU, but in the context of European law and institutions providing an alternative pathway for European investors to hold other member States to account. Section IV considers the implications of Australia’s anti-ISDS stance for ongoing and potential IIA (re)negotiations with the EU and Asian States, including the feasibility of moving towards an EU-style investment court approach in Asia-Pacific IIAs. Section V concludes by linking these developments to ongoing debates about reforms to ISDS—locally, regionally and globally—as well as about incomplete investment IIAs.
