No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 January 2015
The entry into force of the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) in 2012 brought ASEAN closer towards the realization of the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. Nonetheless, a new concern arises regarding the fate of twenty-six Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) that exist among the ASEAN governments. This may raise confusion for the ASEAN governments regarding the applicable standards of investment protection to grant investors. Indonesia was chosen as a case-study because its Investment Coordinating Board recognizes the importance of understanding Indonesia's obligations under the BITs within the context of the ACIA regime, and is in the midst of reviewing its BITs. This paper seeks to provide a better understanding of the interactions between and among these agreements to ensure that the ASEAN governments’ policies comply with their legal obligations. It also provides recommendations on how they could streamline the standards and work towards a single regime of investment protection.
Research Associate, Centre for International Law (National University of Singapore). The author would like to thank all the people who provided invaluable feedback on this paper. In particular, the author would like to thank Roberto Echandi, Michael Ewing-Chow, Jürgen Kurtz, Pierre Sauvé, Kristine Kraabel, and Lin Lin. As always, all mistakes or errors remain entirely the author's.
1. International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database October 2012, online: <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx>.
2. Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM), Facts of Indonesia: Natural Resources, online: <http://www2.bkpm.go.id/contents/general/7/natural-resources>.
3. Ibid.
4. Amco Asia Corp. and Others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1; Cemex Asia Holdings Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/3.
5. Nusa Tenggara Partnership B.V. and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/15, registered 15 July 2014, but withdrawn 25 August 2014 after Newmont agreed to renegotiate with Indonesia.
6. Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13.
7. Churchill Mining and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40.
8. BLAND, Ben and DONNAN, Shawn, “Indonesia to Terminate More than 60 Bilateral Investment Treaties” Financial Times (26 March 2014)Google Scholar.
9. See Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs of Indonesia, Master Plan for the Acceleration of Expansion of Indonesia's Economic Development 2011–2025 (MP3EI), Regulation of the President No. 32 of 2011.
10. NURHAYATI, Desy, “Bureaucratic Reform ‘Heading in Right Direction’” The Jakarta Post (18 September 2013)Google Scholar.
11. Law No. 25 of 2007 of the Republic of Indonesia on Investment.
12. ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 26 February 2009 (entered into force 29 March 2012) [ACIA].
13. ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (entered into force for all Member States 10 January 2012).
14. Agreement on Investment of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the ASEAN and the People's Republic of China (entered into force 1 August 2010).
15. 2009 Agreement on Investment Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Among the Governments of the Member Countries of the ASEAN and the Republic of Korea (entered into force 1 September 2009).
16. CLINTON, Hillary, “America's Pacific Century” Foreign Policy Magazine (November 2011)Google Scholar, online: Foreign Policy <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century>; Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet of Australia, “Australia in the Asian Century” (2012), online: Australian Government <http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/australia-in-the-asian-century-white-paper.pdf> at 4–5.
17. Agreement Among the Government of Brunei Darussalam, the Republic of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore and the Kingdom of Thailand for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 15 December 1987 (entered into force 2 August 1988) [ASEAN IGA], as amended by Protocol to Amend the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 12 September 1996 [Protocol to ASEAN IGA].
18. Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area, 7 October 1998 (entered into force 25 May 1999) [AIA], art, 1 defines an ASEAN investor as:
(i) a national of a Member State; or
(ii) any juridical person of a Member State,
making an investment in another Member State, the effective ASEAN equity of which taken cumulatively with all other ASEAN equities fulfils at least the minimum percentage required to meet the national equity requirement and other equity requirements of domestic laws and published national policies, if any, of the host country in respect of that investment.
19. Ibid., art. 7(1)(a).
20. LIAO Man-Li, “The Research on ASEAN Investment Legal Regime”, Soochow University, 2008 at 13.
21. Yaung Chi Oo Trading Pte Ltd. v. Government of the Union of Myanmar, ASEAN Case No. ARB/01/1 (31 March 2003), ASEAN Arbitral Tribunal (ICSID Additional Facility Rules) at 82.
22. ACIA, supra note 13, art. 1.
23. ASEAN Secretariat, “ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint” ASEAN Secretariat (2008), online: <http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-10.pdf> at 26.
24. ACIA, supra note 13, art. 47.
25. UNCTAD, Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (Geneva: United Nations, 2010) at 14 [UNCTAD 2010].
26. Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award, 27 August 2009, at 227–35 [Bayindir].
27. Emilio Augustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision of the tribunal on the objections of Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, at 56, 62–3 [Maffezini].
28. NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Minimum Standard of Treatment in Accordance with International Law, Notes of Interpretation of 31 July 2001.
29. ADF Group Inc. v. USA, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1, Award, 9 January 2003, at 194 [ADF].
30. Bayindir, supra note 27 at 163–7.
31. Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (entered into force for all states 1 January 2009).
32. Société Generale v. The Dominican Republic, LCIA Case No. UN 7927, Award on Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, 19 September 2008, at 41 [Société Generale]; Rafat Ali Rizfi v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13, Award on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2013, at 223.
33. CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/08, Award, 12 May 2005 [CMS Award].
34. The Treaty between the United States of America and the Argentine Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment (entered into force 20 October 1994); ibid. at 377.
35. UNCTAD 2010, supra note 26 at 24; ibid. at 377.
36. For further reading, EWING-CHOW, Michael and Teck, NG Wuay, “Caveat Emptor: Three Aspects of Investment Protection Treaties” (2010) Asian Yearbook of International Law 14Google Scholar.
37. Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments Between the Kingdom of Spain and the Argentine Republic, 3 October 1991 (entered into force 28 September 1992) [Argentina-Spain BIT].
38. Acuerdo entre la Republica de Chile y El Reino de Espana para La Proteccion y Fomento Reciprocos de Inversiones (entered into force 28 March 1994).
39. Maffezini, supra note 28 at 62–3; Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award, 21 June 2011, at 104–8; RosInvestCo v. Russian Federation, SCC Case No. Arb. V 079/2005, Award on Jurisdiction, October 2007, at 124–35.
40. Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, at 202, 215; Salini Costruttori S.p.A and Italstrade S.p.A. v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 November 2004, at 112; Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence, 19 June 2009, at 220.
41. PAPARINSKIS, Martin, “MFN Clauses and International Dispute Settlement, Moving Beyond Maffezini and Plama?” (2011) 26 ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Journal 14 at 26Google Scholar.
42. Ibid., 37f.
43. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/07, Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007 at 64; ibid., 41.
44. Paparinskis, supra note 42 at 49; MCLACHLAN, Campbell, SHORE, L., and WEINIGER, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
45. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679 (entered into force January 27 1980) [VCLT].
46. Agreement on Free Trade and Economic Partnership Between Japan and the Swiss Confederation (entered into force September 1 2009), art. 88:
2. It is understood that the treatment … does not include treatment accorded to investors of a non-Party and their investments by provisions concerning the settlement of investment disputes between a Party and the non-Party that are provided for in other international agreements.
47. Thirty of the reviewed Indonesian BITs extend MFN treatment to only investments.
48. Twenty-four of the reviewed Indonesian BITs extend MFN treatment to both investments and investors.
49. UNCTAD 2010, supra note 26 at 43.
50. Ibid.
51. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Swiss Confederation (entered into force 6 February 1974); Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Tunisia of the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 12 September 1992); Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the State of Qatar for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 18 April 2000).
52. Fifty-seven of the reviewed Indonesian BITs extend MFN treatment to post-establishment stage.
53. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Finland on the Promotion and the Protection of Investments (entered into force 2 August 2008) [Indonesia-Finland BIT]; Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 22 January 2007).
54. Indonesia-Finland BIT, ibid., art. 3(2).
55. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 29 July 1993); Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Singapore on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 21 June 2006) [Indonesia-Singapore BIT].
56. Maffezini, supra note 28 at 51–3.
57. Forty-seven of the reviewed Indonesian BITs contain MFN exception.
58. Six of the reviewed Indonesian BITs do not have such an exception, including Indonesia-France (1973), and Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 24 March 1977).
59. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 5 November 1998), art. IV(3) [Indonesia-Thailand BIT].
60. Twenty-six of the reviewed Indonesian BITs contain MFN exception for taxation matters.
61. ACIA, supra note 13, art. 4(d) defines “investor” as:
a natural person of a Member State or a juridical person of a Member State that is making, or has made an investment in the territory of any other Member State;
It should be read together with art. 19 of the ACIA on Denial of Benefits.
62. United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (entered into force 1 January 2004) [US-Singapore FTA].
63. VANDEVELDE, Kenneth J., Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy and Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 191Google Scholar.
64. Ibid.
65. UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995–2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking (Geneva: United Nations, 2007) at 28 [UNCTAD 2007].
66. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Chile on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 7 April 1999), art. 3 [Indonesia-Chile BIT].
67. VANDEVELDE, Kenneth J., “A Unified Theory of Fair and Equitable Treatment” (2010) 43 New York University Journal of International Law & Politics at 49Google Scholar.
68. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003, at 154 [Tecmed].
69. Occidental Exploration and Production Co. v. Republic of Ecuador, London Court of International Arbitration, Case No. UN3467, Final Award, July 1, 2004, at 83 [Occidental Exploration]; Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (2000), Award, 30 August 2000, at 99 [Metalclad].
70. Vandevelde, , supra note 68 at 49Google Scholar.
71. Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/ 00/3, Award, 30 April 2004, at 98 [Waste Management].
72. Sempra Energy International v. Argentina, ICSID ARB/02/16, Award, 28 September 2007, at 303 [Sempra Award]; Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007, at 264 [Enron Award].
73. BG Group Plc v. Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, 24 December 2007, at 297 [BG Group].
74. Treaty between the United States of America and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (entered into force 1 November 2006), arts. 5(1) and 5(2).
75. Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v. Canada, Award, 31 March 2010, at 121 [Merrill & Ring]; see also Vandevelde, , supra note 68 at 192–193Google Scholar.
76. Neer v. Mexico, 4 R. Int'l Arb. Awards, 15 October 1926, 4 at 61–2; Case Concerning Electtronica Sicula S.p.A (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment of 20 July 1989 [1989] ICJ Rep 1989 at 15; Gami Investments, Inc. v. Mexico, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Final Award, 15 November 2004 at 116, 123, 125, 127.
77. ADF, supra note 30 at 179; Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada, NAFTA, Award on the Merits of Phase 2, 10 April 2001, at 118 [Pope & Talbot Award]; Merrill & Ring, supra note 76 at 193.
78. Merrill & Ring, supra note 76 at 210, 213.
79. UNCTAD 2007, supra note 66 at 29.
80. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Turkey Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 28 September 1998).
81. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 21 March 2000).
82. BJORKLUND, Andrea, “Reconciling State Sovereignty and Investor Protection in Denial of Justice Claims” (2005) 45 Virginia Journal of International Law 809Google Scholar.
83. Vandevelde, , supra note 68 at 49–50Google Scholar.
84. Metalclad, supra note 70 at 100; S.D. Myers Inc. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration, Partial Award, 24 November 2000, at 224–64 [SD Myers].
85. UNCTAD 2007, supra note 66 at 36.
86. BJORKLUND, Andrea, “National Treatment” in August REINISCH, Standards of Investment Protection (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 30Google Scholar.
87. S.D. Myers, supra note 85 at 254.
88. Ibid at 247–51; Pope & Talbot Award, supra note 78 at 103.
89. Sixteen of Indonesia's BITs do not contain any NT clause. Twenty-nine of Indonesia's BITs contain an NT clause implicitly through the FET provision. On the other hand, seventeen of Indonesia's BITs contain an NT clause, with two of them covering both the establishment and post-establishment stages.
90. LG&E Energy Corp v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, at 146 [LG&E]; Andrew NEWCOMBE and Lluís PARADELL, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties (Alphen Aan Den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009) at 15.
91. Treaty Between the United States of America and the Argentine Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment, 14 November 1991 (entered into force 20 October 1994), art. II(2)(b) [Argentina-US BIT].
92. SINCLAIR, Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd ed. (Manchester: Melland Schill Fund, 1984) at 118–119Google Scholar.
93. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Lao PDR Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 14 October 1995) [Indonesia-Lao PDR BIT].
94. Newcombe, and Paradell, , supra note 91 at 16Google Scholar; Bjorklund, , supra note 87 at 33Google Scholar.
95. Protocol, Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Swiss Government, 6 February 1974, para. 2.
96. Protocol to art. III(1) of the Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on Promotion and Protection of Investment, 6 April 1994.
97. To see the diverging views of tribunals on the analysis of “like circumstances”, see KURTZ, Jürgen, “The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor-State Arbitration: Competition and its Discontents” (2009) European Journal of International Law 749CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
98. Ibid.
99. Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), “Stamp Duty”, online: <http://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/page.aspx?id=8996#Buyer's Stamp Duty and Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) for Residential Properties> (last accessed 5 November 2014).
100. See also US-Singapore FTA, supra note 63, art. 15.4(1).
101. Including: Agreement Between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 15 June 1994) [Indonesia-Malaysia BIT]; Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 3 April 1994) [Indonesia-Viet Nam BIT]; Indonesia-Thailand BIT, supra note 60.
102. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 12 November 2001) [Indonesia-Philippines BIT].
103. UNCTAD 2007, supra note 66 at 44.
104. Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, Award, 17 February 2000, at 76 [Santa Elena].
105. NEWCOMBE, Andrew, “The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law” (2005) 20 ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 8 [Newcombe].
106. Marvin Roy Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/(1), Award, 16 December 2002 at 366–7; DOLZER, Rudolf and SCHREUER, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; KINDRED, Hugh, SAUNDERS, Phillip, CURRIE, Robert, BRUNNEE, Jutta, MCDORMAN, Ted, MGBEOJI, Ikechi, MICKELSON, Karin, PROVOST, Rene, REIF, Linda and WATERS, Chris, International Law: Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada, 7th ed. (Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications, 2006) at 693Google Scholar; McLachlan et al., supra note 45 at 290; Newcombe and Paradell, supra note 91 at 327.
107. CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 2001, at 608 [CME]; Metalclad, supra note 70 at 103.
108. CHRISTIE, George, “What Constitutes a Taking Under International Law?” (1962) 33 British Year Book of International Law 307Google Scholar; FORTIER, Yves and DRYMER, Stephen, “Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor” (2005) 19 ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 293 at 326–327Google Scholar.
109. LG&E, supra note 91 at 190; Metalclad, supra note 70 at 103; Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding, AB, Stockholder v. Republic of Latvia, Riga, SCC, 16 December 2003 at 4.3.1; Dolzer and Schreuer, supra note 107 at 65–93; DUGAN, Christopher F., WALLACE, Don JR., RUBINS, Noah D. and SABAHI, Borzu, Investor-State Arbitration (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 455Google Scholar.
110. EnCana Corporation v. Ecuador, LCIA, Case No. UN3481, Final Award, 3 February 2006, at 172–83 [EnCana v. Ecuador]; Waste Management, supra note 72 at 141, 147.
111. EnCana v. Ecuador, ibid. at 173–4.
112. Tecmed, supra note 69 at 115; Newcombe, supra note 106 at 2.
113. Dugan et al., supra note 110 at 461.
114. Tecmed, supra note 69 at 122.
115. Dugan et al., supra note 110 at 465.
116. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, Part IV Chapter D at 7 [Methanex]; WEILER, Todd, “Methanex Corp. v. U.S.A.: Turning the Page on NAFTA Chapter Eleven?” (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment and Trade 903 at 918–919Google Scholar; SCHNEIDARMAN, David, Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules And Democracy's Promise (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 95Google Scholar.
117. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/01, Award, 2006, at 176 [Fireman's Fund]; Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award, 14 May 2009, at 356 [Glamis Gold].
118. JENEI, Stephen, “Thailand Issues Compulsory License to AIDS Drug” (13 December 2006)Google Scholar, online: Patent Baristas <http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2006/12/13/thailand-issues-compulsory-license-to-aids-drug/>.
119. EWING-CHOW, Michael and FISCHER, Geraldine, “ASEAN IIAs: Conserving Regulatory Sovereignty While Promoting the Rule of Law?” (2011) 8 Transnational Dispute Management 5 at 6–7Google Scholar.
120. Dugan et al., supra note 110 at 179.
121. Ibid., at 178.
122. CMS Award, supra note 34 at 349–52; CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Application for Annulment, 21 August 2007 [CMS Annulment]; LG&E, supra note 91; Sempra Award, supra note 73 at 366–8; Sempra v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Argentina's Application for Annulment of the award, 10 June 2010 [Sempra Annulment]; Enron Award, supra note 73 at 324–6; Enron v. Argentine Republic, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 30 July 2010 [Enron Annulment]; Continental Casualty Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award, 5 September 2008, at 183 [Continental].
123. 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (including official Commentary), 53 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 10) at 43, U.N. Doc. A/56/83 (2001) [ILC Articles].
124. ALVAREZ, Jose E. and BRINK, Tegan, “Revisiting the Necessity Defense”, (2010–11) Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 319Google Scholar; SCHILL, Stephan and BRIESE, Robyn, “‘If the State Considers’: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement” (2009) 13 Max Planck Yearbook on United Nations Law at 62Google Scholar; Jürgen KURTZ, “Adjudging the Exceptional at International Law: Security, Public Order and Financial Crisis”, Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law and Justice, New York University, Working Paper 06/08, 2008; M. WAIBEL, “Two Worlds of Necessity in ICSID Arbitration: CMS and LG & E” (2007) 20 Leiden Journal of International Law 637.
125. MARTINEZ, Elizabeth A., “Understanding the Debate over Necessity: Unanswered Questions and Future Implications of Annulments in the Argentine Gas Cases” (2012) 23 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 149 at 184Google Scholar.
126. CMS Award, supra note 34 at 388–90; Enron Award, supra note 123 at 345; Sempra Award, supra note 123 at 394.
127. LG&E, supra note 91 at 264.
128. CMS Annulment, supra note 123 at 146; Enron Annulment, supra note 123 at 414.
129. Five of the reviewed Indonesian BITs.
130. Two of the reviewed Indonesian BITs.
131. One of the reviewed Indonesian BITs.
132. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Federal Republic of Germany Concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (entered into force 2 June 2007), Ad art. 3.
133. Agreement on Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investment Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (signed 4 April 2009), art. 8.
134. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, 15 April 1994, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187 (entered into force on 1 January 1995) [GATT 1994].
135. General Agreement on Trade in Services, 15 April 1994, Annex 1B, 1869 U.N.T.S. 183 (entered into force 1 January 1995) [GATS].
136. LÉVESQUE, Céline, “The Inclusion of GATT Article XX Exceptions in IIAs: A Potentially Risky Policy” in Roberto ECHANDI and Pierre SAUVÉ, eds., Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
137. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 28 March 2000).
138. Dugan et al., supra note 110 at 179.
139. Note that art. 47(3) of the ACIA provides the possibility for ASEAN investors to apply the provisions of the ASEAN IGA or the AIA up to 29 March 2015.
140. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force 21 September 2000), art. XI [Indonesia-Cambodia BIT]; Indonesia-Singapore BIT, supra note 56, art. XI; Indonesia-Lao PDR BIT, supra note 94, art. XI; Indonesia-Malaysia BIT, supra note 102, art. XI; Indonesia-Philippines BIT, supra note 103, art. XI; Indonesia-Viet Nam BIT, supra note 102, art. XI.
141. For further discussion, see MCLACHLAN, Campbell, “The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention” (2005) 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
142. PRAMUDATAMA, Rabby, “SBY Warns of Time Bomb in RI Mining” Jakarta Post (8 August 2012)Google Scholar, online: Jakarta Post <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/08/08/sby-warns-time-bomb-ri-mining.html>.
143. For further reading, see ECHANDI, Roberto, “Complementing Investor-State Dispute Resolution: A Conceptual Framework for Investor-State Conflict Management” in Roberto ECHANDI and Pierre SAUVÉ, eds., Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 270–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
144. UNCTAD, Investor-State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration (New York: UNCTAD, 2010) at 88–90.
145. The office was established in October 1999, for further information, online: <http://www.i-ombudsman.or.kr/eng/index.jsp>.
146. ACIA, supra note 13, Preamble; ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: A Guidebook for Businesses and Investors (Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, 2013) at 3.
147. ACIA, supra note 13, art. 26(a).
148. Bland, and Donnan, , supra note 9Google Scholar.
149. VCLT, supra note 46, arts. 65, 67.