Investment arbitration in Asia: Five perspectives on law and practice

Luke Nottage; J. Romesh Weeramantry

doi:10.1093/arbitration/28.1.19

Investment arbitration in Asia: Five perspectives on law and practice

Luke Nottage
, J. Romesh Weeramantry

Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews › RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal › peer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite the significant number of BITs or other investment treaties entered into by Asian nations, comparatively few investor-State arbitration proceedings involve Asian claimants or respondents. This article examines the reasons behind this low incidence of investment arbitrations involving Asian parties, particularly in contrast to the burgeoning numbers of investment arbitrations in other regions of the world. Theories developed to explain Japan's low domestic litigation rates are explored to ascertain if they can provide insights as to why relatively small numbers of Asia-related investor-State arbitrations have been instituted. © LCIA, 2012.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	19-62
Journal	Arbitration International
Volume	28
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/28.1.19
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2012
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Publication details (e.g. title, author(s), publication statuses and dates) are captured on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis at the time of record harvesting from the data source. Suggestions for further amendments or supplementary information can be sent to [email protected].

Funding

* We are grateful for research and editorial assistance from Andrew Cong and Wan Sang Lung, and helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article from audiences at various international symposia since 2009 - including participants at a workshop at the University of Sydney on 29 Oct. 2010 (supported by the Institute of Social Sciences); the American Society of International Law annual meeting (Washington, 24—26 Mar. 2011); the Asian Society of International Law conference (Tokyo, 1-2 Aug. 2009); the Australia-NZ Society of International Law conference (Wellington, 1-4 Jul. 2009); and a School of Law seminar at the City University of Hong Kong (9 Feb. 2009). We also thank Nils Eliasson, Mark Kantor and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, and acknowledge research funding (for Nottage's broader project 'Fostering A Common Culture in Cross-Border Dispute Resolution: Australia,Japan and the Asia-Pacific') from the Australia-Japan Foundation, which is part of Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. All cited investment arbitration awards in this paper are available at http://italaw.com/ and/or mosdy http://www.investmentclaims.com. The Figures and corresponding Appendices for ICSID arbitrations are mostly based on data available via http:// icsid.worldbank.org as of 9 Sep. 2010, but we do note a few significant subsequent developments in ICSID (and other) investment disputes. A shorter version of this article appears with the same title in V. Bath & L. Nottage (eds.), Foreign Investment and Dispute Resolution Law and Practice in Asia 25-52 (Roudedge, 2011). ** Luke Nottage, Professor of Comparative and Transnational Business Law, University of Sydney Law School; and J. Romesh Weeramantry, Associate Professor of Law, City University of Hong Kong.

Access Output

10.1093/arbitration/28.1.19

Other Access Options

Check CityUHK Library

Permanent Link

Right click to copy link

Cite this

@article{a344fe1e32a94179b41eb17ea520e09a,

title = "Investment arbitration in Asia: Five perspectives on law and practice",

abstract = "Despite the significant number of BITs or other investment treaties entered into by Asian nations, comparatively few investor-State arbitration proceedings involve Asian claimants or respondents. This article examines the reasons behind this low incidence of investment arbitrations involving Asian parties, particularly in contrast to the burgeoning numbers of investment arbitrations in other regions of the world. Theories developed to explain Japan's low domestic litigation rates are explored to ascertain if they can provide insights as to why relatively small numbers of Asia-related investor-State arbitrations have been instituted. {\textcopyright} LCIA, 2012.",

author = "Luke Nottage and \{Romesh Weeramantry\}, J.",

note = "Publication details (e.g. title, author(s), publication statuses and dates) are captured on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis at the time of record harvesting from the data source. Suggestions for further amendments or supplementary information can be sent to [email protected].",

year = "2012",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/arbitration/28.1.19",

language = "English",

volume = "28",

pages = "19--62",

journal = "Arbitration International",

issn = "0957-0411",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investment arbitration in Asia

T2 - Five perspectives on law and practice

AU - Nottage, Luke

AU - Romesh Weeramantry, J.

N1 - Publication details (e.g. title, author(s), publication statuses and dates) are captured on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis at the time of record harvesting from the data source. Suggestions for further amendments or supplementary information can be sent to [email protected].

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Despite the significant number of BITs or other investment treaties entered into by Asian nations, comparatively few investor-State arbitration proceedings involve Asian claimants or respondents. This article examines the reasons behind this low incidence of investment arbitrations involving Asian parties, particularly in contrast to the burgeoning numbers of investment arbitrations in other regions of the world. Theories developed to explain Japan's low domestic litigation rates are explored to ascertain if they can provide insights as to why relatively small numbers of Asia-related investor-State arbitrations have been instituted. © LCIA, 2012.

AB - Despite the significant number of BITs or other investment treaties entered into by Asian nations, comparatively few investor-State arbitration proceedings involve Asian claimants or respondents. This article examines the reasons behind this low incidence of investment arbitrations involving Asian parties, particularly in contrast to the burgeoning numbers of investment arbitrations in other regions of the world. Theories developed to explain Japan's low domestic litigation rates are explored to ascertain if they can provide insights as to why relatively small numbers of Asia-related investor-State arbitrations have been instituted. © LCIA, 2012.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037739207&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/pubmetrics.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85037739207&origin=recordpage

U2 - 10.1093/arbitration/28.1.19

DO - 10.1093/arbitration/28.1.19

M3 - RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal

SN - 0957-0411

VL - 28

SP - 19

EP - 62

JO - Arbitration International

JF - Arbitration International

IS - 4

ER -

Investment arbitration in Asia: Five perspectives on law and practice

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Access Output

Other Access Options

Permanent Link

Other Files and Links

Fingerprint

Cite this