Category: Asia-Pacific regional architecture

Submission to ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA) upgrade consultation

[The following analysis provided to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Regional Trade Agreements Division) is relevant also for assessing Australia’s other trade and investment agreements, including with Japan bilaterally and through regional treaties such as the CPTPP and the recently concluded Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.]

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to this important public consultation. I see some others are online,[1] and please upload there my present submission. Unfortunately other commitments probably preclude my attendance at the Thursday 2 April meetings in Sydney, but please let me know that day’s timetable as one or more of my co-researchers cited below may be willing and able to attend.

1. For the Services chapter, an important matter for Australia to review will be provisions around delivery of education. The coronavirus epidemic this year has highlighted that Australia’s FTAs (even more recent ones as with China) often do not include commitments allowing cross-border supply (ie service delivery over the internet), which may otherwise conflict with the national laws in our overseas partners.[2] As well as negotiating more expansive commitments, Australia should seek to draft in provisions around procedures for meeting and discussing urgently with counterparties about counter-measures during public health emergencies, as suggested by our A/Prof Jeanne Huang at the recent SCIL International Law in Review conference (in the context of China-Australia FTA upgrades). Such procedural provisions could also be extended to other chapters, including Trade in Goods.

2. For the Investment chapter, AANZFTA in 2009 originally lacked significant liberalisation commitments.[3] A work program for negotiations around expanding market access was envisaged but never completed.[4] This AANZFTA upgrade should at least lock in (through Schedules) liberalisation commitments made under other treaties concluded by Australia with counterpart ASEAN states (including the still undisclosed RCEP), but should go further to provide “value added”. If a Work Program is agreed for further negotiations, the revised AANZFTA should include commitments about when and how to meet, including provisions allowing for public consultation.

3. For the Investment chapter, on protections for foreign investors (including significantly now into ASEAN compared to a decade ago),[5] Australia presumably goes into upgrade negotiations using its most recent significant treaties as a starting point, especially the US-style template (building on NAFTA and epitomised by the CP/TPP) that has become the most common drafting approach around the Asia-Pacific region more generally.[6] However, views around ISDS-backed protections have changed in recent years, regionally (with the EU proposing several novel features, impacting also on Asia[7]) and in multilateral forums (UNCTAD, ICSID and especially UNCITRAL). Australia needs to become more consistently pro-active (arguably working with close partners especially New Zealand) in addressing persistent concerns about ISDS-backed protections in investment agreements, and this review of AANZFTA therefore should propose:

3.1 Minimising costs and delays through promoting amicable settlement,[8] by allowing a disputing party to require the other to attempt to mediate an investment dispute, before proceeding to arbitration. (This was provided under Australia’s recently signed bilateral FTA with Indonesia, although that was seemingly proposed by Indonesia and only allows the host state to compel mediation,[9] whereas an investor should be able to compel it too.).

3.2 Maximising transparency around ISDS (including disclosure around third-party funding) by explicitly adopting the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules (as under Australia’s recently revised BIT with Uruguay), and/or including similar provisions in the upgraded AANZFTA investment chapter text (as under the CP/TPP and/or Australia’s recent bilateral FTA with Peru).[10] Greater transparency benefits almost all stakeholders, not just (especially democratically accountable) host states but also foreign investors (able therefore to better expose protectionist or other vested interests in host states, to the detriment of other groups in those host states).[11] This is also consistent with Australia’s current efforts to ratify the UN Mauritius Transparency Convention; but that only retrofits greater ISDS transparency around pre-2014 treaties even if counterparties ratify that multilateral instrument too in future.

3.3 Further enhancing legitimacy around ISDS by expressly prohibiting “double-hatting” (arbitrators acting also as counsel), as under the CPTPP Code of Conduct,[12] as well as recent EU treaties (albeit for its now-preferred “investment court” alternative to traditional ISDS). Curiously Australia has not provided such an express prohibition in any other treaty, even its recent FTA with Peru (although both states are supposed to issue Guidance for ISDS arbitrators now that it is in force, so that prohibition might still be added there).

3.4 Australia should propose the “public welfare notice” procedure added uniquely in its FTA with China. This usefully suspends ISDS claims while the home state discusses with the host state potential defences relating to public welfare interests in the host state.[13]

3.5 However, as another aspect relating to public health risks such as coronavirus, the AANZFTA upgrade should consider express provisions expediting cross-border movement of senior management related to foreign investments, even in emerging emergency situations.

4. For the Competition chapter, this should be upgraded at least to CPTPP-style standards, but it should be boosted by more expansive Consumer Protection provisions especially now that ASEAN states have made significant (albeit sometimes patchy) progress in this field over last decade as part of building the ASEAN Economic Community.[14] I understand my Business School colleague Prof Gail Pearson has completed an ACCC-funded scoping project, so urge that to be publically disclosed so further informed comment and publically discussed. I also repeat my longstanding calls for Australia to seek provisions in FTAs that require or at least allow respective regulators to exchange consumer product safety accident-related information with their counterparts abroad. This could also be extended to sharing information about consumer credit related risks.[15]

5. The AANZFTA upgrade should also propose a chapter on Environmental Protection, as this is another public concern around FTAs. In particular this should incorporate this FTA’s dispute settlement procedures into other listed environmental protection treaties. The inspiration should be the CPTPP, but drafting improvements are helpfully suggested by our A/Prof Jeanne Huang.[16]

[1] https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/aanzfta/Pages/general-review-of-the-asean-australia-new-zealand-fta.aspx

[2] Huang, Jeanne, https://erga-omnes.sydney.edu.au/2020/02/coronavirus-outbreak-and-teaching-chinese-students-online-legal-issues-that-australian-universities-should-know/

[3] Bath, Vivienne and Nottage, Luke R., The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement and ‘ASEAN Plus’ – The Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA) and the PRC-ASEAN Investment Agreement (September 26, 2013). INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: A HANDBOOK, M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S.Hobe & A. Reinisch, eds., Nomos Verlagsgellschaft: Germany, 2015; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 13/69. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2331714

[4] Bath, Vivienne and Nottage, Luke R., International Investment Agreements and Investor-State Arbitration in Asia (February 26, 2020). Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 20/08. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3544458 (footnotes omitted):

“The AANZFTA provides that the provisions on NT in the Investment Chapter will not come into effect until the Schedules of Reservations were finalized (Art 11.16) under a Work Program. Further negotiations on an MFN provision were also to take place under the Work Program (Art 11.16).  This has not been completed. Indeed, review of the investment chapter was paused in 2017 pending the finalisation of the RCEP, although the Economic Ministers of ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand noted in late 2019 the Upgrade Negotiations to amend the AANZFTA (for the second time) as a result of a review which will include the investment chapter.”

[5] See ASEAN Investment Report 2018 ch1, via https://asean.org/asean-investment-report-2018-published/

[6] Alschner, Wolfgang and Skougarevskiy, Dmitriy, The New Gold Standard? Empirically Situating the TPP in the Investment Treaty Universe (November 20, 2015). Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 17, pp. 339-373 . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2823476 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2823476

[7] Kawharu, Amokura and Nottage, Luke R., Models for Investment Treaties in the Asian Region: An Underview (September 21, 2016). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol 34, No. 3, pp. 462-528, 2017 ; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 16/87. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2845088

[8] See generally, forthcoming in JWIT: Ubilava, Ana, Amicable Settlements in Investor-State Disputes: Empirical Analysis of Patterns and Perceived Problems (March 13, 2019). Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 19/17. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3352181

[9] Ubilava, Ana and Nottage, Luke R., Novel and Noteworthy Aspects of Australia’s Recent Investment Agreements and ISDS Policy: The CPTPP, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Mauritius Transparency Treaties (March 4, 2020). Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 20/12. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3548358

[10] Ibid.

[11] Burch, Micah and Nottage, Luke R. and Williams, Brett G., Appropriate Treaty-Based Dispute Resolution for Asia-Pacific Commerce in the 21st Century (May 24, 2012). University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 1013-1040; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 12/37. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2065636

[12] See Nottage, Luke R. and Ubilava, Ana, Costs, Outcomes and Transparency in ISDS Arbitrations: Evidence for an Investment Treaty Parliamentary Inquiry (August 6, 2018). International Arbitration Law Review, Vol. 21, Issue 4, 2018; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 18/46. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3227401;

and Concept Paper on Arbitrator Independence via https://www.cids.ch/academic-forum-concept-papers

[13] For more details see Nottage, Luke R., Investment Treaty Arbitration Policy in Australia, New Zealand – and Korea? (August 13, 2015). Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 185-226, 2015; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 15/66. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2643926

[14] Nottage, Luke R. and Malbon, Justin E. and Paterson, Jeannie Marie and Beaton Wells, Caron Y., ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation: Backdrop and Overarching Perspectives (June 3, 2019). Luke Nottage, Justin Malbon, Jeannie Marie Paterson and Caron Beaton-Wells, “ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation: Achievements and Challenges”, Cambridge University Press (2019); Sydney Law School Research Paper No. #19/32. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3398046

[15] Nottage, Luke R., Free Trade Agreement and Investment Treaty Innovations to Promote More Sustainable Financial Markets for Consumers (July 2, 2014). THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE NEED FOR CONSUMER REGULATION: NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF CONSUMER, C. Lima Marques, D. P. Fernandez Arroyo, I. Ramsay, G. Pearson, eds., Orquestra Editora, Brazil, 2012; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 14/59. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2461568

[16] Huang, Jie Jeanne and Hu, Jiaxiang, Can Free Trade Agreements Enhance MARPOL 73/78 Compliance? (October 3, 2018). Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol. 43. 2018, pp. 59-91; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 18/62. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3259734

“New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region”: Symposium 17 June 2020 (2-5pm) at/with Taylor’s University, Kuala Lumpur

Supported also by the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at the University of Sydney (CAPLUS), Sydney Southeast Asia Centre (SSEAC) & Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC)

This half-day symposium brings together academic researchers and practitioners in international dispute resolution, exploring new developments regionally impacting on international commercial arbitration as well as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). These extend to initiatives around cross-border mediation, international commercial courts, and China’s Belt and Road project. The symposium builds on a research project over 2019 between the University of Sydney and Hong Kong University (focusing on Australia, HK, China, Japan and Singapore)[1], to examine more closely developments also in Malaysia and other parts of Asia.

Please register your attendance for this complimentary symposium via email to avijayalakshmi.venugopal@taylors.edu.my.

Time Session
2-2.10 pm Welcome Message Mr. Harmahinder Singh Head, Taylor’s Law School, Taylor’s University
2.15-2.40 pm Mediating Japan-Korea Trade and Investment Tensions[2] Professor Luke Nottage Sydney Law School, University of Sydney
2.45-3.10 pm Recent Developments of Institutional Arbitration in China: Specialization, Digitalization and Internationalization[3] Associate Professor Jie Huang Sydney Law School, University of Sydney
3.15-3.40 pm Malaysia’s Involvement in International Business Dispute Resolution[4] Dr. A. Vijayalakshmi Venugopal Taylor’s Law School, Taylor’s University
3.45-4 pm Closing Remarks Professor Luke Nottage & Dr. A. Vijayalakshmi Venugopal
4-4.40 pm Refreshments  

Speakers’ Profiles

Dr Luke Nottage (BCA, LLB, PhD VUW, LLM Kyoto) specialises in comparative and transnational business law (especially arbitration, investment law, contract and consumer law), with a particular interest in Japan and the Asia-Pacific. He is Professor of Comparative and Transnational Business Law at Sydney Law School, founding Co-Director of the Australian Network for Japanese Law (ANJeL), and Associate Director of the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at the University of Sydney (CAPLUS). He has held fellowships at other leading institutions in Japan and Australia as well as Germany, Italy, Canada and Thailand.

Luke’s 16 books include International Arbitration in Australia (2010, eds), Foreign Investment and Dispute Resolution in Asia (2011, eds), International Investment Treaties and Arbitration Across Asia (2018, eds), Contract Law in Japan (2019) and ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation (2019, both co-authored).

He has or had executive roles in the Australia-Japan Society (NSW), the Law Council of Australia’s International Law Section, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, and the Asia-Pacific Forum for International Arbitration. Luke is also a Rules committee member of ACICA and listed on the Panel of Arbitrators for the AIAC (formerly KLRCA), BAC, JCAA, KCAB, NZIAC, SCIA and TAI. Luke has consulted for law firms world-wide, the EC, the OECD, the UNDP, ASEAN and the Japanese government; and has contributed to arbitration and consumer law reform and investment treaty-making in Australia. He qualified as a lawyer in New Zealand in 1994 and in New South Wales in 2001.

Dr Jie (Jeanne) Huang, SJD (law) Duke University School of Law in the US; Master of International Law and LLB, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics in China. Dr. Jeanne Huang is an associate professor at the University of Sydney Law School in Australia. She is widely known for her research on legal issues in digital trade and e-commerce, international investment and Chinese law. She has published four books and authored many articles in leading peer-reviewed law journals, such as Journal of International Economic Law and Journal of Private International Law. Twelve of her articles are indexed by SSCI. She has received funding from University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, China National Social Science Fund general project (equivalent to Australian ARC), China Ministry of Education, the China Law Society, Shanghai Philosophy and Social Science Fund, and Shanghai Government Development and Research Centre Fund on research topics related to international trade and investment regulations.

Dr. A. Vijayalakshmi Venugopal (LLB, MEd(Psy), LLM, PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in Taylor’s Law School, teaching various modules in the LLB and LLM degrees, including Alternative Dispute Resolution, Law of the World Trade Organization and International Sale of Goods. She has supervised a number of LLM theses on international arbitration. She is the author of 3 books and various articles on law. She has also presented conference papers on and been a trainer in education. She qualified as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia.

[1] https://japaneselaw.sydney.edu.au/2019/02/

[2] Claxton, James M. and Nottage, Luke R. and Williams, Brett G., Mediating Japan-Korea Trade and Investment Tensions (December 3, 2019). Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 19/73. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3497299.

[3] Jie (Jeanne) Huang (2019), Recent Developments of Institutional Arbitration in China: Specialization, Digitalization and Internationalization, in Julien Chaisse & Jiaxiang Hu (Eds), International Economic Law and the Challenges of the Free Zones, (pp. 251-275), Wolters Kluwer.

[4] Venugopal, A. V., Malaysia’s Involvement in International Business Dispute Resolution, in Ali, S., Jetin, B.; Nottage, L.; and Teramura, N., New Frontiers in Asia-Pacific International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, Wolters Kluwer.

Guest Blog: Chief Justice Bathurst’s launch of Asian Law books

[Ed: The Hon TF Bathurst AC, Chief Justice of New South Wales, kindly launched two Asian law books at a CAPLUS seminar hosted by Herbert Smith Freehills in Sydney on 28 November 2019: ‘Contract Law in Japan‘ by Hiroo Sono, Luke Nottage, Kenji Saigusa and Andrew Pardieck (Wolters Kluwer 2019) and ‘ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation‘ by Luke Nottage, Justin Malbon, Jeannie Paterson and Caron Beaton-Wells (CUP 2019). Other discussants included Sydney Business School Adjunct Professor Donald Robertson (expert in international contract law) and Sydney Business School Professor Gail Pearson (expert in comparative consumer law). The Chief Justice’s remarks are uploaded on the Supreme Court website and are reproduced below with permission.]

1. I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, and pay my respects to their Elders, past, present and emerging.  It took a long time for our legal system to recognise the unique connection with this land which they have under their ancient law and customs.  When it did, a door was opened to a greater understanding which had the potential to enrich both traditions and heal some of the wounds within our community inflicted by more unjust times.

2. In this way, our history demonstrates, rather starkly, the necessity for a dialogue between different systems of law.1  A dialogue offers us the opportunity to take a glimpse into the workings of an unfamiliar system, and, in so doing, see our own in a different light.  It may help us better appreciate the shortcomings and deficiencies of our own approach to important legal questions, and benefit from an understanding of how others have approached them.  In short, it is never enough to compare two systems simply by pointing out the differences.  It is necessary to go further, and reflect on how and why those systems differ, and what they can learn from each other.

3. The two books which we have gathered to launch today are fine examples of scholarly works within this tradition.  Neither could be described solely as a work of “comparative law”, since neither has a narrow, solely comparative focus.  For example, Contract Law in Japan2 seeks to present Japanese contract law largely on its own terms, although this inevitably involves occasional reference to its French, German, and even American progenitors.  In the same vein, ASEAN Consumer Law3 aims to treat the consumer law of ASEAN as a unified, or at least, unifying, entity, rather than as a simple agglomeration of the laws of its member states – although, as I quickly learned while reading, this is something much easier said than done.  

4. On their own merits, both works would stand as comprehensive guides to the substantive law of the jurisdictions which they cover.  However, it would be disingenuous for me to deny that both works invite and encourage the uninitiated reader, such as myself, to whom the contract law of Japan and the consumer law of the members of ASEAN has long remained a mystery, to draw their own comparisons with the law in their home jurisdiction, which in my case is, of course, Australia.  In my brief remarks this evening, I would like to touch on some of the connections and contrasts between Australian, Japanese, and ASEAN law which appear from both works.  To make such a large task feasible given the scope of the coverage in each book, I will focus on only two themes which I think have particular relevance to Australian law at present.

5. The first theme is concerned with the extent to which it is appropriate for a legal system to define causes of action, or otherwise enforce or restrict legal rights, based on broad, normative standards of conduct.  In Australian law, we might take as an example the statutory prohibitions on “conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable”.4  No further explanation of the nature of “unconscionable” conduct is given, although the legislation does list a sizeable number of factors which might be relevant.5  Ultimately, it is left to the court to determine whether the conduct in a particular case is “against conscience by reference to the norms of society”,6 or more prosaically, whether it was contrary to “accepted community standards”.7  

6. Now, while this does not simply amount to allowing a judge to proscribe conduct which they deem to be “unfair” or “unjust”,8 it may be thought to come closer than many other areas of law permit.  We can see the consequences in the recent decision of the High Court in ASIC v Kobelt,9 where the Court split 4:3 on the issue of whether the provision of an informal system of credit by the owner of a general store in a remote, Indigenous community was “unconscionable”.  The breadth of the standard makes it difficult to attribute the difference in opinion between the members of the Court to any legal error.  Rather, the distinction between the majority and the minority appears to lie in their contrasting views about what the “norms of society” or “accepted community standards” actually require.10  Put this way, difference in opinion ceases to be unexpected, and perhaps, becomes inevitable.11

7. This creates something of a dilemma for the law.  If the “norms of society” or “accepted community standards” are so subtle and esoteric in their application to a particular set of circumstances that even some of the most experienced legal minds in the country cannot agree, then ought the final decision to really remain in their hands?  In these circumstances, it would not be out of the question to believe that the legitimacy of the conduct should really be the subject of consideration by the representatives of the people in the legislature.  A provision which is clearly directed to address a particular situation puts beyond doubt that a matter has been considered by the legislature.  It defines its own standard by which the relevant conduct is to be judged.  To be sure, any statutory provision may be capable of giving rise to its own difficulties of interpretation, but at least these problems are susceptible to the application of more familiar legal reasoning.12  

8. It seems to me that this is an approach which has, to some extent, been adopted by Japanese contract law in analogous circumstances.  Rather than relying on a broadly-expressed criterion of “unconscionable conduct” to define the situations in which a court would be prepared to set aside a consumer contract, it instead states the particular circumstances which will give rise to such a claim.13  One such example, which seems to reflect the narrower, general law doctrine of “unconscionable conduct” in this country,14 is where “a business stirs up [the] excessive anxiety of a consumer without enough ability to judge due to [their] old age or mental disorder about [their] health or living conditions”.15  There are other similar examples, which spell out in some detail the types of conduct which are not regarded as acceptable business practice in Japan when it comes to consumer contracts.16  

9. It is worth noting that these exceptions for consumer contracts were introduced even though Article 90 of the Japanese Civil Code provides that a contract is void if it is “against public policy”,17 perhaps a phrase of even wider import than “unconscionable conduct”.18  Even though the express exceptions for consumer contracts could very well have been analysed as being “against public policy”,19 it was still felt necessary to craft particular provisions to deal with these situations.  It could well be thought that such an approach improves certainty, and promotes greater democratic legitimacy.  

10. While there can be a need to resort to general standards of conduct to ensure that unforeseen and undesirable activities do not escape the supervision of the law, it seems to me that there is much to be said for resisting the temptation to make these standards the “first port of call” for regulation.20  I think the Japanese approach to the grounds on which a consumer contract may be set aside for what we might describe as “unconscionable conduct” provides an interesting perspective on this issue.  There is much more that could be said about this topic, and, no doubt, Japanese law might have difficulties of its own with overbroad standards of conduct.  But the utility of the comparison should be apparent.  It illustrates the different approaches which may be taken to a complex issue, and suggests alternative ways of resolving them.  

11. The second theme I would like to touch on this evening is concerned with the role which regulatory bodies ought to play in policing and enforcing what might broadly be described as “consumer protection legislation”.  Again, this is something that has been a live issue in Australia since the Hayne Royal Commission delivered its Interim Report in 2018, which strongly criticised how ASIC approached the enforcement of the financial services legislation for which it was responsible.21  The Report noted that ASIC’s “starting point” for responding to misconduct appeared to have been to attempt to resolve the issues by agreement and negotiation with the entity concerned,22 with a focus on remediation of harm caused rather than sanction for the misconduct itself.23  In words which bear repeating in full, the Report stated:

“This cannot be the starting point for a conduct regulator.  When contravening conduct comes to its attention, the regulator must always ask whether it can make a case that there has been a breach and, if it can, then ask why it would not be in the public interest to bring proceedings to penalise the breach.  Laws are to be obeyed.  Penalties are prescribed for failure to obey the law because society expects and requires obedience to the law.”24

12. The rhetoric here is certainly characteristic of the direct and forthright attitude of the Commissioner.  It is compelling and persuasive, with seemingly inexorable logic.  However, I think it has somewhat directed attention away from an important anterior question:  to what extent was ASIC conceived to be a “conduct regulator” prior to the Royal Commission?  It must be admitted that now, in light of the Commission, public opinion overwhelmingly favours ASIC taking an active role as a “conduct regulator”.  And ASIC has taken heed.  Shortly after the publication of the Interim Report, in response to its criticisms, ASIC adopted what has been compendiously described as the “Why Not Litigate?” approach,25 placing enforcement squarely at the forefront of its responsibilities, although it has been quick to point out that this is by no means equivalent to a “litigate first, and ask questions later” approach for any breach, no matter how trivial.26  Was this always intended to be how ASIC operated?

13. Interesting light is shed upon this question by Mr Alan Cameron AO, a former Chair of ASIC and its predecessor from 1993 to 2000, in an address he delivered some months before the delivery of the Interim Report,27 although at a time when many of the shortcomings in the financial services sector had already been exposed in hearings before the Commission.  He reflected on the fact that, from its inception, ASIC has never seen itself solely as an enforcement body.  It has also regarded itself as having a “market facilitation role”,28 and, I might add, with some justification, because this objective is still reflected prominently in its enabling legislation today.29  Indeed, even as late as 2014, in a “Statement of Expectations for ASIC” published by the Government, enforcement was not mentioned as part of its “key role”, or even as one of its objectives.30  

14. It is striking the degree to which the same concerns and ambiguity about the proper role of a regulator appear in the topics discussed in ASEAN Consumer Law.  While no single chapter discusses the work of consumer protection regulators as its primary focus, it is a background theme which recurs with surprising frequency in other chapters when discussing the efficacy of the substantive law.  Importantly, one gets the sense that this results from much the same concerns which have motivated the discussion about the role of ASIC as a regulator in Australia:  despite the introduction of relatively strong protections for consumers “on the books” in most members of ASEAN in recent years,31 there has been little tangible evidence that these protections have translated into better outcomes for consumers.  

15. Even for those countries which have had consumer protection legislation for some time, there is often a dearth of filings in courts attempting to utilise these laws.32  Thailand appears to be an exception to this trend, but even then, there are few cases in which a consumer protection claim has proceeded to reported judgment.  Most are settled.33  Part of the reason for the slow uptake might be attributed to the lack of an effective and well-resourced regulator to educate the public about their rights as consumers, and where necessary, to step in and take appropriate enforcement action.34  In many countries, it falls to consumer advocacy NGOs to raise awareness about consumer protection issues, in the absence of better-resourced government programs.35  It should be no surprise that Thailand, with its higher filing rate, is also the country with the greatest consumer NGO activity.36  

16. Now, it may be accepted that there are significant differences between the level of economic development between most members of ASEAN and Australia.  Nevertheless, the experience of ASEAN ought to remind us that legislation needs to be coupled with an appropriate enforcement strategy if it is to be effective.  Introducing legislation to prohibit undesirable conduct is one thing.  Translating that legislation into practical outcomes for consumers is another.  And, ultimately, it is that second step which proves difficult.  As we have seen, perhaps there were grounds for believing that ASIC’s former approach was too lenient.  But it is a matter of balance.  There is always a risk that things may swing too far in the other direction.  

17. The themes I have discussed this evening are just two small examples of the way in which contemporary legal debate in Australia can be seen to overlap with those in other jurisdictions.  This focus might have given the mistaken impression that I believe that comparative law is only useful for what it can tell us about our own system of law.  This could not be further from the truth.  But, I firmly believe that the first step in motivating policy-makers and lawyers to engage with comparative law is to highlight the connections and similarities which we have with other systems.  It is only then that we can demonstrate that comparison opens a door to a dialogue from which both systems can benefit.

18. Both of the works being launched tonight are excellent examples of how such scholarship can incisively deconstruct unfamiliar legal systems and make them more accessible to a wider audience.  And, what is more, each clearly exposes and explains the challenges which each system faces on its own terms.  This is an admirable achievement, and one for which the authors deserve our congratulations.

19. Thank you.

Footnotes:

1  See also Uwe Kischel, Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2019) 46 ff.

2  Hiroo Sono et al, Contract Law in Japan (Wolters Kluwer, 2019).

3  Luke Nottage et al, ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation: Achievements and Challenges (Cambridge University Press, 2019).  

4  Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’) s 21(1); Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (‘ASIC Act’)s 12CB(1).

5  Australian Consumer Law s 22(1); ASIC Act s 12CC(1).

6  ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90 at [41] (Allsop CJ, Jacobson and Gordon JJ); ACCC v Medibank Private Ltd [2018] FCAFC 235at [239] (Beach J); ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 at [57] (Kiefel CJ and Bell J), [87] (Gageler J).

7  Ipstar Australia Pty Ltd v APS Satellite Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 15 at [195] (Bathurst CJ); ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 at [59] (Kiefel CJ and Bell J).

8  Attorney-General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557 at 583 [120] (Spigelman CJ); cf ACCC v C G Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 at 64 [11] (Gleeson CJ).

9  [2019] HCA 18.

10  Ibid [75]–[79] (Kiefel CJ and Bell J), [101]–[111] (Gageler J), [124]–[129] (Keane J), [235]–[240] (Nettle and Gordon JJ), [296]–[302] (Edelman J).

11  Ibid [95] (Gageler J).

12  Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Kojic (2016) 249 FCR 421 at 436–7 [58]–[59] (Allsop CJ), 442–3 [85]–[87] (Edelman J); cf ASIC v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18 at [267]–[268] (Edelman J).

13  Sono et al (n 2) 79 [168] ff.

14  See Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85 at 102–3 [37]–[39] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Edelman JJ). 

15  Sono et al (n 2) 80, quoting art 4(3)(v) of the Consumer Contract Act (Japan); cf Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 at 405 (Fullagar J).

16  See also Sono et al (n 2) 83–4.

17  Civil Code (Japan) art 90.

18  Cf Sono et al (n 2) 81–3 .

19  See ibid 83 [182]–[183].

20  Attorney-General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557 at 583 [121] (Spigelman CJ).

21  See Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, Interim Report (September 2018) vol 1, ch 8.

22  Ibid 277.

23  Ibid 296.

24  Ibid 277 (emphasis original).

25  Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘Update on Implementation of Royal Commission Recommendations’ (Paper, February 2019) 3.

26  See, eg, Commissioner Sean Hughes, ‘ASIC’s Approach to Enforcement after the Royal Commission’ (Speech, 36th Annual Conference of the Banking and Financial Services Law Association, 30 August 2019).  

27  Alan Cameron, Reflections on Regulators, Without Casting Aspersions’ in Pamela Hanrahan and Ashley Black (eds), Contemporary Issues in Corporate and Competition Law (LexisNexis, 2019) 165.  The speech was originally delivered on 26 June 2018.

28  Ibid 167.

29  ASIC Act s 1(2).  

30  Australian Government, ‘Statement of Expectations for ASIC’ (April 2014) <https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/what-we-do/how-we-operate/accountability-and-reporting/statements-of-expectations-and-intent/statement-of-expectations-april-2014/>; see also Cameron (n 26) 173.

31  See Nottage et al (n 3) chs 3–4.

32  Ibid 163–73,.

33  Ibid 167.

34  Ibid 240–1, 246–7.

35  Ibid 365–6.

36  Ibid 165–7.

ASEAN consumer law harmonisation: trends and prospects

[Written by Luke Nottage, Justin Malbon, Jeannie Paterson and Caron Beaton-Wells, for a posting on the blog of Cambridge University Press, which has just published the e-book version of our 8-chapter book on “ASEAN consumer law harmonisation and cooperation: Achievements and challenges”. It will be launched by NSW Chief Justice Bathurst and discussed, with “Contract Law in Japan” co-authored by Luke Nottage, on 27 November 2019 at HSF in Sydney.]

The ten states now comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have collectively become a major part of the world economy, bringing together over 600 million people including a growing middle class. Yet they are highly diverse in socio-economic development, political structure and legal traditions, as outlined in chapter 1 of our book. What hope is there for real legal harmonisation or cooperation, especially for consumer protection?

The “ASEAN Economic Community” project significantly expanded intra-regional trade and investment liberalisation commitments, aiming to raise individual member states’ living standards. But this does not necessarily mean weakening consumer protection. Chapter 2 shows how and why ASEAN, through AEC Blueprints and related law reform and capacity-building initiatives, has tried to “trade up” to higher consumer law standards. It also applies other theoretical perspectives to explore the actual achievements of ASEAN, generally and for consumer protection.

Chapter 3 chronicles national enactments of consumer product safety laws and regulations, often as part of general consumer protection law statutes, as well as (often strict liability based) product liability laws, in three stages including the 2007-2015 AEC phase. It highlights regulatory gaps and demarcation problems among “line ministries” and newer consumer affairs regulators, as well as problems of access to justice for consumers seeking compensation for harm from unsafe products.

Chapter 4 focuses on consumer contracts, contrasting the widespread bans on misleading conduct with more variable treatment of unfair contract terms. A uniform approach is more unlikely but most existing laws may be sufficient if backed by effective education and enforcement.

Chapters 5 and 6 take a regional perspective in examining how ASEAN collectively can deal with pressing issues regarding consumer finance and professional health services. The challenge for consumer finance is having all states apply consumer protection measures at least against abusive lending practices, including debtor harassment. Another challenge reducing the number of people who are financially excluded. New technologies offer opportunities to achieve this, but ASEAN can strengthen knowledge and experience sharing networks amongst government agencies and other key players in this fast-evolving field.

ASEAN’s trade liberalisation agenda needs to be applied in a carefully nuanced way concerning professional health services. These services are not only a consumer product; access to health services is a basic human right. Attuning public policy to meet universal health objectives while also gaining the benefits of being subjected to competitive marketplace disciplines is tricky, especially when national budgets are highly constrained. The challenges may be exacerbated if members implement ASEAN’s commitment to mutual recognition of professional qualifications, so health professionals gravitate from poorer countries to higher income states.

Chapter 7 explores the development of competition policy and associated laws and enforcement institutions in ASEAN, at both the national and regional levels. It explains the interface between competition and consumer protection and examines the implications for substantive and institutional design and operation that have been increasingly recognised around the world.  Highlighting the general lack of coordination between competition and consumer protection endeavours in ASEAN to date, it poses some explanations for this and argues that a more coordinated and outcome-focused approach would assist in achieving the economic and social objectives of the AEC.

The book concludes by considering whether transgovernmentalism or “regional shared value” can promote more coordinated and effective consumer law, galvanising the cooperative and consensus-building approach traditionally preferred by ASEAN.

New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (6): 15 November symposium @USydney

As part of a research project jointly funded by HKU and USydney over 2019 (see background and many related postings via https://japaneselaw.sydney.edu.au), Sydney Law School will host a second symposium on Asia-Pacific business dispute resolution, all day on 15 November (the Friday before Australia Arbitration Week, this year in Brisbane), with support from CAPLUS, SCIL, TDM and various other ADR or international law related organisations. Registration and speaker bios are here, and presentation Abstracts and/or online publications are being uploaded below. During refreshments following symposium presentations and panel discussions, there will also be a book launch of Vivienne Bath and Gabriel Moens, Law of International Business in Australasia (Federation Press, October 2018).

Challenges and opportunities for Asia-Pacific international commercial arbitration symposium

15 November 2019

Building on Reyes & Gu (eds), The Developing World of Arbitration: A Comparative Study of Arbitration Reform in the Asia-Pacific (Hart, 2018), this symposium examines more recent challenges for international commercial arbitration (ICA), especially the proliferation of international commercial courts, the 2018 UN Convention on enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, and dispute resolution for the Belt & Road initiative. The main focus is on Hong Kong and Singapore (competing jurisdictions in the top “Stage 4” for ICA venues, as identified by Reyes & Gu), Australia (a “Stage 3” venue), China and Japan (“Stage 2” venues).

The symposium will also compare approaches in these jurisdictions to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Building on Chaisse and Nottage (eds) International Investment Treaties and Arbitration Across Asia (Brill, 2018), participants will chart evolving treaty practices and high-profile ISDS cases (including eg in Indonesia), assess whether these do or might impact on public attitudes even towards ICA or other forms of arbitration, and explore alternatives or complements to ISDS.

Speakers:

  • Professor Shahla Ali, University of Hong Kong
  • Professor Vivienne Bath, University of Sydney Law School
  • Adj Prof Max Bonell, Henry Williams Lawyers & Sydney Law School
  • Professor Simon Bronitt, Dean, Sydney Law School
  • Professor Simon Butt, University of Sydney Law School
  • Professor James Claxton, Kobe University
  • The Hon Dr Clyde Croft AM SC, Supreme Court of Victoria
  • Daniel Forster, Clifford Chance & University of Sydney Law School
  • Dr Benjamin Hayward, Monash University
  • Brenda Horrigan, ACICA President & Herbert Smith Freehills
  • Dr Jeanne Huang, The University of Sydney Law School
  • Wilson Mbugua, University of Hong Kong
  • James Morrison, ACICA & Morrison Law
  • The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM QC FAAL, formerly Federal Court of Australia (in lieu of Roger Gyles AO QC, ABA rapporteur for inquiry available via https://austbar.asn.au/singapore-2019/papers)
  • Professor Luke Nottage, University of Sydney Law School
  • Jonathan Redwood, Banco Chambers
  • Yi Tang, University of Hong Kong
  • Dr Nobumichi (Nobu) Teramura, University of Adelaide
  • Professor Leon Trakman, UNSW
  • Professor The Hon Marilyn Warren AC QC, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria

VIEW THE DRAFT PROGRAM (as at 9 August 2019; update via Registration webpage)

ABSTRACTS:

Ali, Shahla, “ICA and ISDS Developments in Hong Kong in the Context of China’s Belt and Road Initiative” (September 13, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3453061
This article examines the impact of both the Belt and Road Initiative and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (the Model Law) on both international commercial and investor state arbitration practice in Hong Kong. Given the significance of Hong Kong as a gateway to OBOR project financing and logistics, understanding current dispute resolution policy is critical for gaining insights into China’s approach to the resolution of OBOR disputes. Measures taken to modernize the practice of arbitration including training programmes and legislative reforms are examined with a view to gaining insights into challenges and future developments.

Claxton, James M. and Nottage, Luke R. and Teramura, Nobumichi, “Developing Japan as a Regional Hub for International Dispute Resolution: Dream Come True or Daydream?” Journal of Japanese Law, Issue 47, 2019; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 19/01. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3299097
The Japanese government, supported by various stakeholders, has recently been attempting to develop Japan as another regional hub for international business dispute resolution services. Tracking this development is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. How it unfolds should reveal which of various theories for explaining Japanese law-related behaviour have more traction nowadays. Assessing the new initiatives is also important for legal practitioners and others interested in the practical question of where to arbitrate or mediate cross-border business disputes. This paper therefore reports on current attempts to promote existing and new international arbitration centres in Japan as well as the recent establishment of the Japan International Mediation – Kyoto, in the context of intensifying competition from other regional venues for dispute resolution services. [Our presentation also updates on the Japan-Korea trade and investment tensions that escalated from mid-2019, and the various dispute resolution options that could be engaged.]

Teramura, Nobumichi, Luke Nottage and James Morrison, “International Commercial Arbitration in Australia: Judicial Control over Arbitral Awards” (updated June 2019)
Geographical remoteness has not prevented Australia from pursuing its ambition to become a major hub for international commercial arbitration (ICA). While regional competitors in the Asia-Pacific region such as Singapore and Hong Kong have already achieved great success in the arbitration world, Australia’s ‘Tyranny of Distance’ requires extra efforts to attract ICA cases. Recent marketing from the Australian government emphasises (1) a harmonised legal framework for ICA in line with international standards; (2) sophisticated arbitration institutions; and (3) some of the world’s leading arbitration practitioners.
While these factors do reveal strong potential to attract ICA cases, to ensure that this goes beyond a mere possibility, the Australian government and judiciary are making quite concerted broader efforts. The former has recently become more vigorous in marketing Australia-based ICA in and out of the country. The latter has generally tried to issue pro-arbitration judgments particularly over the last ten years, and in public speeches or publications leading judges have been actively summarising and promoting Australian developments both domestically and world-wide. However the court system has structural problems, due to the shared ICA jurisdiction of State and Territory Courts alongside the Federal Courts, compared to the unitary system in Hong Kong and Singapore. There are also persistent delays in court-related ICA matters under the IAA, even in the Federal Court of Australia. Nonetheless, perfection is never attainable.
The rest of this paper argues that Australia has significantly improved legal environment for ICA in line with international standards, focusing on the main topics identified for a wider cross-jurisdictional research project: (1) arbitrator bias; (2) conflicts of interests; (3) procedural irregularities and arbitrator’s misconduct during proceedings; (4) arbitrability (objective arbitrability) (5) judicial interpretation of arbitration clauses (subjective arbitrability); and (6) enforceability of arbitral awards (especially regarding public policy).

Nottage, Luke, “Confidentiality versus Transparency in International Arbitration: Asia-Pacific Tensions and Expectations” (August 29, 2019) Sydney Law School Research Paper No. #19/52, August 2019. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3444692

Both Australia and Japan lie geographically on the periphery of the Asian region, where international arbitration has been burgeoning especially over the last 15 years. Both countries have struggled to attract significantly more arbitration cases, despite quite extensive efforts (especially by Australia); most cases still go to Hong Kong, Singapore and (especially where local parties are involved) China. This is despite increasingly strict confidentiality obligations being introduced through the rules of the major arbitration institutions, and/or legislation, in Japan and especially Australia. Although aiming to meet the usual expectations of businesspeople and their legal advisors in international commercial dispute resolution, these changes may be “too little, too late”. By contrast, transparency obligations have been added increasingly around the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) option included in almost all investment treaties concluded respectively by Australia and Japan. This tendency arguably reflects growing concerns about the public interests implicated by ISDS cases (especially in Australia). Australia has gone the next step of revising its legislation in 2018 to automatically exempt some investment treaty arbitrations from the confidentiality obligations otherwise imposed by default on parties and others in Australia-seated international arbitration proceedings since 2015. Japan does not need to, because its legislation does not apply confidentiality to arbitrations by default. This paper explores possible tensions between these two trajectories in each country. The lessons may be particularly interesting for other jurisdictions (perhaps like Italy) interested in how best to promote and attract international arbitration cases amidst evolving expectations in business and wider communities. The tensions may also influence the EU’s ongoing negotiations for investment protection treaties with respectively Australia and Japan.

Hayward, Ben, “Arbitration in Australia – Efficient, Effective, Economical? A Retrospective”
On 4 December 2009, Australia’s arbitration profession met in Melbourne for a conference hosted by ACICA – the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration – Australia’s leading international arbitral institution. The conference was titled ‘International Commercial Arbitration: Efficient, Effective, Economical?’ – reflecting efficiency, effectiveness, and economic viability’s status as important concerns held by the profession.  Australia’s arbitration laws have been amended many times since then, with a number of significant cases also having been handed down since that time.  One decade later, it is an apt time to ask whether post-2009 developments in Australia’s arbitration laws have addressed these three concerns, and if so, to what extent.  This is the analysis undertaken by this project, which draws upon ten years of developments in Australian arbitration law to identify implications for future law reform in this area.

Warren, Margaret and Croft, Clyde, “An International Commercial Court for Australia: An Idea Worth Taking to Market”

[Extracted from Conclusion of the draft paper:] When the significant trade agreements negotiated by the Federal government are considered with respect to Asia, especially China, and the Pacific, the opportunities offered by an Australian international court are almost boundless. Indeed, there is a symmetry in the establishment of an Australian court which would complement the trade agreements. The proposal for an international commercial court for Australia cannot be left to the Courts themselves or the legal profession to develop and agitate. The experiences of Singapore, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and indeed, London demonstrate that it is vital for there to be government interest and support for such a proposal.

It is also important to be reminded that a proposal for an Australian court occurs within an international context [… including also] an important legal institute … established in the Asian region in which Australia is an active participant: The Asian Business Law Institute …

A stronger contribution can be made to the rule of law by courts working together than if they are working separately. The early 21st Century is being defined by something of a return to internationalisation and globalisation, although the form and forms that will take remain to be seen. It is for us to shape those forms in the capacity we can and to make contributions towards global stability, harmonisation and due recognition of the law in the context of commercial enterprise. These common purposes, as well as quality of justice and the manner of its administration provided at commercial courts and arbitral tribunals, international and domestic, should be promoted and indeed marketed.

Trakman, Leon “An Australian Perspective on Investment Treaty Negotiations and Investment Arbitration“

Notwithstanding the vision of model Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions across the international community of states, the obstacles are profound.  Supporters propose a cost-benefit analysis to determine the provisions’ utility.  But states are likely to diverge over the costs and benefits of such a multilateral instrument  Material factors will include the stages of development of the states in issue, the kinds of foreign investors (likely) attracted, and alternatives to investor-state arbitration (including recourse to host state courts). Prospects for a model investment treaty that applies internationally are doubtful at best.  Indeed, states that already have their own models, such as the US and China, agonise over their content when revising them, including in relation to ISDS. 

Notably, too, some (especially developing) states that have lost arbitration claims brought by foreign investors have forsaken ISDS in favour of leaving recourse to domestic courts.  Some Latin American states, such as Ecuador and Bolivia, adopted this position after massive losses to foreign investors from developed countries.  More recently, developed states have displayed wariness of ISDS. Australia, unlike Germany and Canada, has never lost an investor-arbitration claim – including the ISDS claim brought by Philip Morris. But it briefly forsook ISDS arbitration a decade ago under a Labour Coalition Government, partly due to a recommendation of Australia’s Productivity Commission.  A Liberal Government soon reverted to a case-by-case approach towards ISDS, excluding it from a new bilateral treaty with Japan (although ISDS is now available via CPTPP) and PACER Plus, while including ISDS in treaties with Korea, China, and (updated) Singapore. Australia’s most recent but as yet unratified treaties, notably with Hong Kong and Indonesia, also include ISDS.  What is distinctive in these various treaties providing for ISDS is how that choice is expressed.

This presentation will explore ISDS in Australia’s bilateral treaties. It will identify disparate provisions, the manner in which they are manifest, and the reasons for and significance of their adoption.  It will explore some perceived costs-benefits underlying such divergence over ISDS.  It will evaluate the rationale that Australian seeks to shield its outbound investors from the domestic courts of its treaty partner states, while protecting itself from excessive claims by their inbound investors.  It will critically evaluate the proposition that ISDS may be more expeditious and transparent than proceeding before domestic courts.  [For an earlier paper focusing on the Asia-Pacific, see here.]

Tang, Yi, “Applying PRC’s BITs in Hong Kong and Macao SARs: Contradictions Between the Chinese Government and Investment Tribunals”

In recent years, it is observed that the investor-state tribunals have more frequently encountered a difficult problem of the territorial application of investment treaties, especially bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Among all the investment treaty arbitration cases concerning the application of BITs concluded by the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the cases of Tza Yap Shum v Peru and Sanum Investment Ltd v Laos stand out due to the special status of China’s Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions (SARs). In these two cases, one key dispute is whether PRC’s BITs can be applied to Hong Kong or Macao SARs. And the tribunals and courts in both cases reached the conclusion that PRC’s BITs do apply to Hong Kong or Macao, which has presented a sharp contrast with the Chinese official stance. Against this background, this paper intends to analyze how and why the international investment tribunals’ decisions contradict from the Chinese official position. It will first examine the two controversial cases by teasing out the opposing arguments and standpoints, then it will analyze what might explain the confrontation between the positions held by the Chinese government and the investment tribunals respectively. What are the driving forces behind the two contradictory stances? This paper attempts to conduct a relatively comprehensive analysis on this issue by delving into the reasons from historical, legal, political and economic perspectives. This analysis hopes to offer an innovative prism through which we can gain some new insights into the question of applying PRC’s BITs to SARs. It is also of value to the future implications and policy suggestions as to what China should do to solve the current dilemma, and to prevent future confusion. 

Mbugua, Wilson, “Dispute Resolution in International and Bilateral Investment Agreements” (earlier draft paper with Shahla Ali at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3168996)

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims have mainly centred on impairment of investments by the host state in banking, infrastructure development, mining, among other sectors. Intellectual properties as a form of investments are protected by a considerable number of bilateral investment treaties, however, they have rarely been invoked in ISDS claims until recently. This paper sketches the fabric and the structure ISDS in bilateral investment treaties and how it is applied in practice. Secondly, it will examine how arbitration tribunals have dealt with the subject of intellectual property rights by focusing on two standards of protections- expropriation and fair and equitable treatment. Lastly, the paper will conclude with a discussion on the criticism facing ISDS and possible paths for reforms.   

Huang, Jie (Jeanne), “Data Protection in Investment Arbitration: Privacy, Confidentiality and Transparency“

Two recent cases, Tennant Energy v Canada and Elliott v. Korea, demonstrate that the booming domestic and regional data protection laws have brought real and significant challenges to investment arbitration. The unprecedented but unclear role of data protection in investment arbitration requires serious attention from both academic and practising communities. This paper intends to address four issues. Firstly, how to determine whether an investment arbitration is subject to a domestic or regional data protection law? Second, suppose that a domestic or regional data protection law (e.g. GDPR) should be applied to an ISDS, what are the similarities and differences between the concept of ‘privacy’ under the data protection law and the general assumption that arbitration proceedings are both ‘private’ and ‘confidential’? The third issue is the interplay between the immunity under public international law and the privacy obligation under a domestic and regional data protection law. Last but not least, may the transparency obligation under the UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (now being considered by the Australian Parliament) conflict with the privacy obligation under a domestic or regional data protection law? If so, how to resolve the conflict?

ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation: Achievements and Challenges

This is the title of my next book, co-authored with Profs Justin Malbon, Jeannie Paterson and Caron Beaton-Wells in Melbourne, which will be published by Cambridge University Press around the end of this year in its series on “Integration Through Law: The Role of Law and the Rule of Law in ASEAN Integration“. It is the first Western-language research monograph detailing significant developments in consumer law and policy across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, underpinned by a growing middle class and implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community from 2016. Eight chapters examine consumer law topics within ASEAN member states (such as product safety and consumer contracts) and across them (financial and health services), as well as the interface with competition law and the nature of ASEAN as a unique and evolving international organisation. We include insights from extensive fieldwork, partly through several consultancies for the ASEAN Secretariat over 2013-5, to provide a reliable, contextual and up-to-date analysis of consumer law and policy development across the region. The volume also draws on and contributes to theories of law and development in multiple fields, including comparative law (with references also to consumer law developments in Australia, Japan and the EU), political economy and regional studies.

Continue reading “ASEAN Consumer Law Harmonisation and Cooperation: Achievements and Challenges”

New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (3): What Future for ISDS?

After Australia’s general election held on 18 May 2019, the prospects for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and therefore investment chapters in free trade agreements (FTAs) remain unclear not only for Australia but also the wider Asia-Pacific region. This posting provides some backdrop and reiterates a proposal for a bipartisan (and bi-national) approach by Australia (especially with New Zealand) to more actively promote a “permanent investment court” (or at least some of its core features) as a compromise alternative to conventional ISDS, for its future treaties as well as in reviewing older ones. This should be not just in pending FTA negotiations with the European Union, which now already insists on such a court for resolving investor-state disputes (aiming also to develop a multilateral investment court), but also in (re)negotiations with other Asia-Pacific states. A version of this posting is with the East Asia Forum blog too.
This proposal will be tabled and hopefully discussed at the upcoming seminar at the University of Hong Kong, on 15 July, as part of a joint project over 2019 with USydney on “New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region“.

Continue reading “New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (3): What Future for ISDS?”

Guest blog: review of “ASEAN product safety law”

Written by: Prof Sothi Rachagan (Vice-Chancellor, Nilal University, Malaysia)
[Prof Rachagan, doyen of consumer law and policy studies in Southeast Asia, has kindly provided the following review of my conference volume co-edited with Chula Uni Prof Sakda Thanitcul, published by Winyuchon (Bangkok) in 2016 in English plus Thai translation, with a version of the introductory chapter available here.]

Continue reading “Guest blog: review of “ASEAN product safety law””

New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (2): Japan, China, Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore

Here are some papers to be presented and discussed at a symposium on Monday 15 July at Hong Kong University, as part of a joint research project over 2019 with the University of Sydney Law School.

Continue reading “New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (2): Japan, China, Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore”

New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (1): HKU/USyd research project

The central administrations of the University of Hong Kong and the University of Sydney have provided A$17,000 each for this joint research project over 2019, centred around two conferences at HKU on Monday 15 July and at USydney on Monday 18 November. The lead co-investigators are respectively A/Prof Shahla Ali and Prof Luke Nottage. Below we set out the project’s Aims, Significance and Outcomes. Further updates are expected on this Blog.

Continue reading “New Frontiers in International Arbitration for the Asia-Pacific Region (1): HKU/USyd research project”