Legal unification is often said to be necessary for trans-border commerce: Europe is an optimal market, facilitated through the institution of the European Union. Alternatively, legal unification in Europe is linked to an idea of a European cultural identity. Behind these two justifications are two ideas about what Europe is. Can the same be said about Asia? In this chapter, Michaels connects discussions about an Asian identity with four concepts of Asia. The first concept is a European idea of Asia and Asian law, which defines a presumably homogeneous Asia on the basis of its level of difference from Europe. Of next three concepts, two of them explicitly invoke leadership of one country: China or Japan. Finally, the idea of Asian values attempts to avoid leadership by any one country in favour of a truly Asian identity. The three chapters cannot avoid the central problems of the European projection: they are all defined by their relation to the West. Michaels closes with an alternative concept of Asia “as method” to overcome these two shortcomings and may offer a more promising path towards an idea of Asian law.

Asian economies are attempting to (re)balance their interests in fostering burgeoning outbound investment and attracting inbound investment, while preserving appropriate regulatory autonomy, while maintaining an attractive environment for foreign investors. To understand the issues and the likely future trajectory for international investment law in the region, this chapter first introduces Poulsen’s comprehensive recent study focusing on the experiences of developing countries world-wide, but including analyses of several Asian states (as outlined in Part 2 below). Despite marshalling powerful arguments and evidence for manifestations of ‘bounded rationality’ in BIT negotiations and drafting, some limits to his theory are suggested by a closer analysis of several countries in the region (Part 3). Given such historical experiences, it seems premature to abandon altogether the current treaty protection regime. Nonetheless, a combination of new approaches is worth considering under existing treaties, including more principled use of proportionality testing and deference to host state decision-making (Part 4.1). Greater care is also needed when assessing the net benefits from entering into new treaties, including the latest research into whether investor-state dispute settlement provisions lead to significantly greater cross-border investment (Part 4.2).

This chapter introduces the backdrop to the achievements and challenges experienced as ASEAN has intensified its program of harmonising minimum standards of consumer protection across Southeast Asia, especially over the last decade. A key factor outlined is economic integration both among ASEAN member states and with their wider regional and global economies. Yet diversity among member states (demographics, economic development, legal and political systems, NGOs and press freedom) can influence the timing and extent of consumer law reform and implementation in each country. The chapter ends with summaries of the scope and key lessons of the remaining substantive chapters (examining product safety regulation, consumer contracts, financial and health services, and interaction of consumer law with competition law) as well as the concluding chapter (adding proposals for enhancing more public-private ‘shared regional value’).

Consumer product safety law has become a core element of consumer protection law in almost all ASEAN member states. Reforms began by creating post-market intervention powers for consumer affairs regulators, allowing them to ban or recall goods found to be unsafe; and sometimes pre-market powers, to set minimum safety standards. Yet many general consumer affairs regulators still lack capacity and jurisdiction, especially for pre-market powers, limiting capacity to exercise even post-market regulatory powers and to engage in proliferating cross-border standard-setting networks. The Chapter also examines the relationship between regulators and NGOs, as well as with private litigants who may wish to turn instead to the court system to obtain relief for harm from unsafe goods. Five ASEAN states have enacted strict product liability legislation. Indeed, although inspired by 1985 European Union legislation, the versions in Southeast Asia generally are more pro-plaintiff in various ways. Yet there are almost no court filings. Appendices present two extended case studies: informal networks promoting food standards and safety, and formal agreements harmonising cosmetics regulation.