Foreign Investment Law and Policy in Australia: A Critical Analysis

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Gilligan ◽  
Justin O'Brien ◽  
Megan Bowman
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Bowman ◽  
George Gilligan ◽  
Justin O'Brien

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-292
Author(s):  
Dominic Npoanlari Dagbanja

This article assesses the implications of investment promotion and protection agreements (ippas) for domestic investment law and policymaking in Ghana. It reviews the terms of domestic investment legislation prior to and after Ghana entered into ippas to ascertain the differences in the content of domestic laws and the role of the ippas in the changing pattern of foreign investment law and policy in Ghana. The review shows fundamental differences. Whereas, for example, under the pre-investment treaty domestic investment laws, a proposed investment could be admitted only if it would contribute to the national economy, the post-investment treaty domestic investment law requires only minimum capital for admission. What explains the fundamental change in the content of the post-investment treaty domestic law? The literature reveals that the change in government policy from a regulatory to a more investment promotion-oriented policy explains the shift in the content in investment law in Ghana. The post-investment treaty domestic law was enacted against the backdrop of structural adjustment policies that emphasised liberalization. The article argues complementarily that the coming into force of the ippas of Ghana also explains the changing pattern in the content of domestic investment law. Given the definitions of investment and the substantive obligations under the ippas, Ghana could not, even without independent policy change, retain the content of domestic investment law as was the case when she was not party to any ippas. The thesis is that ippas have the effect of limiting regulatory autonomy and will limit future legislative powers of the State in defining the content of domestic investment law and policy. This will ultimately determine the pattern and trend of domestic investment law and policy in Ghana. The article proposes that the ippas should be renegotiated to take into account the constitutional responsibility of the Government to protect the welfare of the people of Ghana.


2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-75
Author(s):  
Ondřej Svoboda

The phenomenal story of China’s ‘unprecedented disposition to engage the international legal order’ has been primarily told and examined by political scientists and economists. Since China adopted its ‘open door’ policy in 1978, which altered its development strategy from self-sufficiency to active participation in the world market and aimed at attracting foreign investment to fuel its economic development, the underlying policy for mobilizing inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) remains unchanged to date. With the 1997 launch of the ‘Going Global’ policy, an outward focus regarding foreign investment has been added, to circumvent trade barriers and improve the competitiveness of Chinese firms, typically its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In order to accommodate inward and outward FDI, China’s participation in the international investment regime has underpinned its efforts to join multi-lateral investment-related legal instruments and conclude international investment agreements (IIAs). China began by selectively concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with developed countries (major capital exporting states to China at that time), signing its first BIT with Sweden in 1982. Despite being a latecomer, over time China’s experience and practice with the international investment regime have allowed it to evolve towards liberalizing its IIAs regime and balancing the duties and benefits associated with IIAs. The book spans a broad spectrum of China’s contemporary international investment law and policy: domestic foreign investment law and reforms, tax policy, bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, G20 initiatives, the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative, international dispute resolution, and inter-regime coordination.


The phenomenal story of China’s ‘unprecedented disposition to engage the international legal order’ has been primarily told and examined by political scientists and economists. Since China adopted its ‘open door’ policy in 1978, which altered its development strategy from self-sufficiency to active participation in the world market and aimed at attracting foreign investment to fuel its economic development, the underlying policy for mobilizing inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) remains unchanged to date. With the 1997 launch of the ‘Going Global’ policy, an outward focus regarding foreign investment has been added, to circumvent trade barriers and improve the competitiveness of Chinese firms, typically its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In order to accommodate inward and outward FDI, China’s participation in the international investment regime has underpinned its efforts to join multi-lateral investment-related legal instruments and conclude international investment agreements (IIAs). China began by selectively concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with developed countries (major capital exporting states to China at that time), signing its first BIT with Sweden in 1982. Despite being a latecomer, over time China’s experience and practice with the international investment regime have allowed it to evolve towards liberalizing its IIAs regime and balancing the duties and benefits associated with IIAs. The book spans a broad spectrum of China’s contemporary international investment law and policy: domestic foreign investment law and reforms, tax policy, bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, G20 initiatives, the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative, international dispute resolution, and inter-regime coordination.


1990 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15
Author(s):  
H. Pivka ◽  
M.E. Coronna

Author(s):  
Jürgen Kurtz

This review essay identifies two fundamental flaws in much of the secondary literature examining international investment law. The first is a clear attention to disciplines other than law in identifying and understanding the justifications for constraints on state regulation vis-à-vis foreign investment. Secondly, there are stubborn vestiges of self-containment among a sizeable set of legal commentators in this field. This typically reaches its apotheosis in instinctive and hostile opposition to usage of lessons and techniques employed in international trade law. Measured against the direction and nature of contemporary state practice, this type of older commentary is rapidly approaching an overdue expiry date. Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy marks a welcome and significant break from these flawed pathologies. Many of the contributions will shape the contours of innovative and important scholarship in this field. It is a collection that merits careful and repeated consideration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document