(Luận văn thạc sĩ) INVESTOR STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD AND LESSONS FOR v

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY MASTER THESIS INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD AND LESSONS FOR VIETNAM Major: International Economics Specialization: International Trade Policy and Law Code: 8310106 Full name: Truong Thi Kim Xuyen Supervisor: Dr Vo Sy Manh 2 Table of Contents 3 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I, Truong Thi Kim Xuyen hereby declare, in fulfilment of the requirements of the Foreign Trade University that the thesis is my original work under the supervision of Dr Vo Sy Manh 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr Vo Sy Manh who gives me guidance, support and encouragement to complete this thesis Secondly, I am also grateful to the Foreign Trade University for providing a wonderful environment for whole my period time of study Finally, a special thanks goes to Dr Cao Thi Hong Vinh for all her prompt and enthusiastic responses and support during my course 5 ABBREVIATIONS AANZFTA ACIA ASEAN ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement Association of Southeast Asian Nations BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty CBDR Common but Differentiated Responsibility CIL COMESA Customary International Law Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CPTPP Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership DPI ECJ Department of Planning and Investment European Court of Justice ECT Energy Charter Treaty FCN Friendship, Commerce and Navigation FDI Foreign Direct Investment FET Fair and Equitable Treatment FPS Full Protection and Security FTA Free Trade Agreement GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs ICJ International Court of Justice ICSID International Center for Settlement of IIA Investment Disputes International Investment Agreement IMS International Minimum Standard IPA ISDS LCIA Investment Protection Agreement Investor-State Dispute Settlement London Court of International Arbitratio MFN Most-Favoured Nation Treatment MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment MST Minimum Standard of Treatment 6 NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NT National Treatment OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PCA SCC Permanent Court of Arbitration Stockholm Chamber of Commerce SFC South Fork Company SFT Swiss Federal Tribunal SPC Supreme People’s Court TIP Treaty with Investment Provision UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development VIAC Vietnam International Arbitration Center WTO World Trade Organization 7 LIST OF FIGURES Known ISDS cases filed by arbitral rules, from Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 qualified and no FET clause, signed between 1959 1987 to 31 July 2017 (Per cent) Number and share of BITs with unqualified, and 2016 13 8 SUMMARY OF THESIS RESEARCH RESULTS Being an attractive investment destination with a huge number of international investment agreements (IIAs) signed with other member states, apart from the economic benefits achieved, Vietnam has to face more legal risks arising from the claims of foreign investors on the ground of the IIAs, and one of the most concern is the breach of FET clause The study provides the legal risks arising from the unqualified FET clauses in most IIAs of Vietnam To have such conclusion, the research firstly examines the formulations of the FET in IIAs and then make a comparison between the thresholds of investors’ protection regarding to these formulations The study also examines the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases on the FET claims, specifically four cases in which Vietnam government was a respondent and the provides the elements that Vietnam government should take them into account when being sued by the foreign investors on the ground of the FET standard The thesis also goes further by analyzing the reform of FET clauses in newgeneration IIAs which is one of the most important goals in World Investment Forum in 2018 As a result, the study then argues the advantages and disadvantage of each formulation of FET so that Vietnam government can easily make a comparison and consideration between these formulations of FET when it comes to negotiating and signing new IIAs Last but not least, the study provides the Vietnamese authorities lessons and recommendations for better practice in prevention the disputes with foreign investors regarding to FET claims as well 9 ABSTRACT Fair and equitable treatment (FET) as an international investment treatment standard, has been incorporated in most international investment agreements According to UNCTAD’s IIA Mapping database, which includes over 2500 mapped BITs (UNCTAD 2016), there are only 117 BITs with no FET clauses out of 2538 BITs signed between 1959 and 2016 The standard, however, as interpreted by investor-state arbitration tribunals, is an ambiguous, imprecise and unclear obligation that turns it into a “catch-all” provision FET is therefore frequently invoked by investors in investor – state arbitration that the awards sometimes cost for billions of dollars For these reasons, it is time for the government to pay more attention to this standard, especially developing country as Vietnam As a small contribution, the thesis attemps to find the best approach for Vietnam government when it comes to sign a new IIA in order to balance the interest between the state and foreign invertors as well as analyzing the legal problems that Vietnam government should handle to minimize the violation of FET clause Moreover, the thesis desires to give some recommendations for Vietnam government when it comes to be a respondent with a claim on the FET clause during the hearing of investment arbitral tribunal INTRODUCTION Background of the study According to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (UNCTAD 2018) as of 2018, Vietnam has signed about 65 Bilateral Investment Treaties and 26 Treaties with Investment Provisions (hereinafter collectively referred to as the International Investment Agreements- IIAs) It should be noted that in most of the IIAs that Vietnam has signed such as the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the Agreement on Investment among the Governments of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian 10 10 Nations, Korea- Vietnam Bilateral Investment Agreement and France - Vietnam Bilateral Investment Agreement or others like the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that Vietnam has been negotiating and shall sign as a member in the near future, they all include the standard of fair and equitable treatment (FET) Being an attractive investment destination with a huge amount of IIAs signed with other member states, apart from the economic benefits achieved, Vietnam has to face more legal risks arising from the claims of foreign investors on the ground of the IIAs, and one of the most concern is the breach of FET clause since this standard is commonly regulated in unqualified way (which shall be discussed further in Chapter II) In practice, Vietnam’s law, particularly foreign investment law, treats foreign investors fairly and equitably; however, in practice State authorities, when applying the law, have not fully accorded such treatment in administrative and court proceedings (Tuan 2016, p.288) As a result, the government of Vietnam could be sued in the international arbitral tribunals where the awards can cost billions of dollars (as in the case between Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of 10 116 116 10 Makane Moïse Mbengue, Stefanie Schacherer, Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Springer, 2019 11 Mann FA, British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, British Yearbook of International Law Volume 52, 1982, pp 241–254 12 Marc Jacob, Stephan Schill, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper, 24/2017, pp.700763 13 Mayeda Graham, Playing Fair: The Meaning of Fair and Equitable Treatment in Bilateral Investment Treaties, Journal of World Trade, Vol 41, 2/2007, pp 273-291 14 Muchlinski, Peter ‘Caveat Investor’? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 2006, pp 527-557 15 Nguyen Phuong D., The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in Investor- State Arbitration in Vietnam, International Arbitration Asia, 2016 16 OECD, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law, 2004 17 OECD, International Investment Law: A Changing Landscape A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives: A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives, OECD Publishing, 2005 18 Patrick Dumberry, Shopping for a better deal: The use of MFN clauses to get 'better' fair and equitable treatment protection, Arbitration International, 1/2017, pp.1-16 19 Picherack Roman, The Expanding Scope of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Have Recent Tribunals Gone Too Far?, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol 9, 4/2008, pp.1-291 117 117 20 Raphael de Vietri, Fair and Equitable Treatment for Foreign Investment: What is the Current Standard at International Law, International Trade and Business Law Review Annual Vol XIV, 2011, pp.414-421 21 Rumana Islam, Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in Arbitral Practice: Sustainable Development in Context, Bangladesh Journal of Law, 1/2016, pp 21-68 22 Sadiq L.O, Variability of fair and equitable treatment standard according to the development, Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.9, 4/2014, pp 229-235 23 Small Yannaca, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Recent Developments, Standards of Investment Protection, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.111-131 24 Srilal M Perera, Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons from the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part I & Part II, The Journal of World Investment & Trade Vol 13, 3/2012, pp.482-485 25 Subedi Surya P., International Investment Law: Reconciling Policy and Principle, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2008 26 Talkmore Chidede, Legal Protection of Foreign Direct Investment A Critical Assesment with Focus on South Africa and Zimbabwe, Anchor Academic Publishing, 2016 27 Thomas J Westcott, Recent Practice on Fair and Equitable Treatment, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol 8, 3/2007, pp 409-430 28 UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement II – A Sequel, 2012 118 118 29 UNCTAD, Investor – State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2017, 2018b 30 UNCTAD, Investor – State Dispute Settlement: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement II – A Sequel, 2014 31 UNCTAD, Recent Developments in the International Investment Regime, 2018a 32 UNCTAD, Special Update on Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Facts and Figures, 2017 33 UNCTAD, UNCTAD's Reform Package for the International Investment Regime 2018c B Books Andreas F Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, 2008 Christoph Schreuer, Introduction: Interrelationship of Standards, in “Standards of Investment Protection”, Oxford University Press, 2008 KJ Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy and Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.199 L Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy , Colombia University Press, 1979, p.47 Martins Paparinskis, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment, Oxford University Press, 2013 Roland Klager, Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2011 Rudolf Dolzer, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties, The International Lawyer, 1/2005, pp 87-106 119 119 Rumana Islam, The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Arbitration: Developing Countries in Context, Springer, Singapore, 2018 Stephan W Schill, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2009 C Thesis Nguyen Van T., The Protection of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under International Investment Law: A Case Study of Vietnam, Ph.D thesis in Philosophy, La Trobe University, Victoria in 2016 D Internet Materials An Khanh, Tensions between Vietnam – Netherlands and Arbitral Tribunal (Căng thẳng Việt Nam – Hà Lan Toà trọng tài (Series on Trinh Vinh Binh case – Season 4), at https://projects.voanews.com/vukien-trinh-vinh-binh-vs-chinh-phu-vn/ky-4-cang-thang-vn-ha-lan-va-toatrong-tai, Accessed on 14/11/2018 Business Times Singapore, S’pore: the right place for dispute settlement, 2014, at http://simc.com.sg/2014/07/05/spore-right-place-dispute- settlement/, Accessed on 05/01/2019 Lacey Yong, Sebastian Perry, ‘Vietnam Wins Treaty Claim over Medical Facility’ at http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/33307/vietnam-winstreaty-claim-medical-facility/, Accessed on 05/01/2019 Luke Eric Peterson, The Future of Moral Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2009 120 120 Mahnaz Malik, Fair and Equitable Treatment, 2009, at https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/best_practices_bulletin_3.pdf, Accessed on 21/12/2018 Nguyen, Dang, Luan, The International Arbitration Review, 2018, at https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-international-arbitration-reviewedition-9/1171773/vietnam , Accessed on 05/01/2019 OECD, OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Viet Nam 2018, at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/oecd-investmentpolicy-reviews-viet-nam-2017_9789264282957-en , Accessed on “fair”, at Accessed on 05/01/2019 Oxford Dictionaries, definition of https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/april , 12/11/2018 Rouse, The EVFTA: A Breakthrough for Vietnam – EU Relations, Lexology, 2015, at www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3bb2a3a8c92-409b-bd3e-ac3ee2f9c26c, Accessed on 21/12/2018 10 Szolnoki Leo, Vietnam Faces New Treaty Claim, 2014, at http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/32414/vietnam-facesnew-treaty-claim/, Accessed on 05/01/2019 11 Thai S., French investor loses lawsuit against Vietnamese government, at http://www.thanhniennews.com/business/french-investor-loses-lawsuitagainst-vietnamese-government-37044.html, Accessed on 25/11/2018 12 Thang Q., Why did Mr Trinh Vinh Binh sue Vietnam government for 1.25 billion USD in compensation (Vì ơng Trịnh Vĩnh Bình kiện Chính phủ địi 1,25 tỷ USD? in Vietnamese), http://www.thanhniennews.com/business/french-investor-loses-lawsuitagainst-vietnamese-government-37044.html, Accessed on 24/10/2018 at 121 121 13 Thao Ha Phuong, International investment disputes and the lessons, 2015, at http://baophapluat.vn/doanh-nhan/tranh-chap-dau-tu-quoc-te-vabai-hoc-kinh-nghiem-222640.html, Accessed on 06/01/2019 14 UNCTAD, Mapping of IIA clauses, at https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Pages/mapping-of-iia-clauses#fair , Accessed on 15/01/2019 15 Vietnamplus, The La Haye Court decision in favor of Vietnam government, 2014, at https://www.vietnamplus.vn/toa-an-la-haye-phanquyet-chinh-phu-viet-nam-thang-kien-vu-dialasie/299733.vnp, Accessed on 05/01/2019 16 Vo Anh T., A central state organ for coordifation og international investment disputes (in Vietnamese: Cần quan điều phối tranh chấp đầu tư quốc tế cấp trung ương), at http://baophapluat.vn/tuphap/can-mot-co-quan-dieu-phoi-tranh-chap-dau-tu-quoc-te-cap-trunguong-399285.html , Accessed on 05/02/2019 17 Weil, P., “The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship of a Menage a Trois”, ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Journal, 401/2000, pp.401- 416 D Legislation Decision No 04/2014/QD-TTg on Promulgation of the Regulation on Coordination in Resolution of International Investment Disputes Swiss Private International Law Act in 1987 Vietnamese Law on Foreign Investment in 1987 Vietnamese Law on Foreign Investment in 2014 E Cases 122 122 Alpha Projektholding GMBH v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/07/16, IIC 464, 20 October 2010 American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc v Republic of Zaire, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1, 21 February, 1997 ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/08/2 Azurix v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Final Award, 14 July 2006 Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi AS v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID No ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction , 14 November 2005 Biwater v.Tanzania, ICSID Case No.ARB/05/22 and Vivendiv.Argentina, ICSID Case No.ARB/97/3 Bryan Cockrell v The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, PCA Case No 2015- 03, 2014 Cervin Investissements S.A and Rhone Investissements S.A v Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No ARB/13/2), Award, March 2017 CMS v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005 10 ConocoPhillips and Perenco v The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, UNCITRAL, 2017 11 Desert Line Projects v Yemen, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1 12 Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award, 31 October 2012 13 DialAsie SAS v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL, 2011 14 Duke Energy v Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/04/19, Award, 18 August 2008 15 Enron v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007 16 Generation Ukraine, Inc v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9 17 Genin vs Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001 123 123 18 Hamester v Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010 19 International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico, Award, IIC 136 (2006), 26th January 2006, Ad Hoc Tribunal (UNCITRAL) 20 Joseph C Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 21 January 2010 21 L F H Neer and Pauline Neer (U.S.A.) v United Mexican States, 1926 22 Lauder v Czech Republic, Final Award, IIC 205 (2001), 3rd September 2001, Ad Hoc Tribunal (UNCITRAL) 23 Merrill and Ring Forestry L.P v Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/07/1 24 Michael L McKenzie v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL, 2010 25 MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile S.A v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7 26 Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/06/11 27 Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007 28 Power Group L.C and New Turbine, Inc v Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007 29 PSEG Global Inc and others vs Turkey Award, 19 January 2007 30 RECOFI v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL, 2013 31 Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic, Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic, Partial Award, ICGJ 368 (PCA 2006), 17th March 2006, Permanent Court of Arbitration 32 Sekozi v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2016 33 Sempra Energy International vs Argentine Republic Award, September 28, 2007 124 124 34 Shin Dong Baig v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/18/2, 2018 35 Siemens AG v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, Award, February 2007 36 Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/2 37 Tokios Tokelės v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18 38 Trinh Vinh Binh and Binh Chau Joint Stock Company v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL (agreed to settle), 2004 39 Trinh Vinh Binh v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ICC, 2014 40 United Parcel Service of America Inc vs Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/02/1 41 Waste Management, Inc v United Mexican States (“Number 2”), ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, Final Award, 30 April 2004 42 Wena Hotels Ltd vs Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, December 2000 43 Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/04/14, Award Dec 8, 2008 125 125 APPENDIX: LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS OF VIETNAM A LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES OF VIETNAM No Partners Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belarus BLEU (Belgium- Date of Date of Formulations of signature entry into FET clauses 21/10/1996 force Signed (not Not mapped* 03/06/1996 01/02/1993 05/03/1991 27/03/1995 01/05/2005 in force) 01/06/1997 28/04/1993 11/09/1991 01/10/1996 Signed (not Unqualified FET Not mapped* Not mapped* Unqualified FET Not mapped* 08/07/1992 24/01/1991 in force) 24/11/1994 11/06/1999 Not mapped* Qualified FET 19/09/1996 01/09/2001 16/09/1999 15/05/1998 24/10/2005 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* 02/12/1992 12/10/1995 25/11/1997 23/07/1993 06/09/1997 24/09/2009 21/02/2008 26/05/1992 03/04/1993 13/10/2008 26/08/1994 in force) 01/09/1993 01/10/1996 09/07/1998 07/08/1994 04/03/2002 11/02/2012 04/06/2009 10/08/1994 19/09/1998 08/12/2011 16/06/1995 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Qualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Luxembourg 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Economic Union) Bulgaria Cambodia Chile China Cuba Czech Republic Denmark Egypt Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary 126 126 23 24 25 Iceland India Iran, Islamic 20/09/2002 08/03/1997 23/03/2009 10/07/2003 01/12/1999 19/03/2011 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* 26 27 28 29 Republic of Italy Japan Kazakhstan Korea, Dem 18/05/1990 14/11/2003 15/09/2009 02/05/2002 06/05/1994 19/12/2004 07/04/2014 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Not mapped* 30 31 32 People's Rep of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Lao People's 15/09/2003 23/05/2007 14/01/1996 05/06/2004 16/03/2011 23/06/1996 Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET 33 34 Republic Latvia Lithuania 06/11/1995 27/09/1995 20/02/1996 24/04/2003 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET 35 36 37 Malaysia Mongolia Morocco 21/01/1992 17/04/2000 15/06/2012 09/10/1992 13/12/2001 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Qualified 16/01/2007 15/02/2000 in force) 29/05/2007 Signed (not FET Not mapped* Not mapped* 30/05/2003 in force) Signed (not Not mapped* 10/03/1994 15/10/2014 10/01/2011 in force) 01/02/1995 11/01/2016 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET 27/02/1992 31/08/1994 15/09/1994 16/06/1994 29/10/1992 17/12/2009 20/02/2006 22/10/2009 in force) 29/01/1993 24/11/1994 16/08/1995 03/07/1996 25/12/1992 18/08/2011 29/07/2011 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET Not mapped* Qualified FET Not mapped* Democratic 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Netherlands North Macedonia Oman Philippines Poland Romania Russian Federation Singapore Slovakia Spain Sri Lanka in force) 127 127 52 53 54 Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Province of 08/09/1993 03/07/1992 21/04/1993 02/08/1994 03/12/1992 23/04/1993 55 China Tajikistan 19/01/1999 Signed (not 56 57 58 59 Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Arab 60 61 62 63 Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela, 30/10/1991 15/01/2014 08/06/1994 16/02/2009 01/08/2002 12/05/2009 28/03/1996 20/11/2008 in force) 07/02/1992 08/12/1994 Signed (not in force) 01/08/2002 09/09/2012 06/03/1998 17/06/2009 Bolivarian Republic of Not mapped*: The full text of the BIT is not available Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET Qualified FET Not mapped* Not mapped* Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET 128 128 B LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN TREATIES WITH INVESTMENT PROVISIONS OF VIETNAM No Name Parties Date of Date of Formulations signature entry into of FET clauses Qualified FET Comprehensive Australia, Br force 08/03/201 30/12/201 and Progressive unei Agreement for Darussalam, Trans-Pacific Canada, Chil Partnership e, Japan, Mal (CPTPP) (2018) aysia, Mexico , New Zealand, Peru ASEAN - Hong , Singapore Hong Kong, 12/11/201 Signed Qualified Kong, China China SAR FET SAR Investment (not in force) Agreement (2017) Trans-Pacific Australia, 04/02/201 Signed Qualified Partnership Brunei FET (2016) Darussalam, Canada, Chil e, Japan, Mal aysia, Mexico , New Zealand, Peru , Singapore, United States of America (not in force) 129 129 Eurasian Eurasian Economic Union Economic 29/05/201 05/10/201 Qualified FET - Viet Nam FTA Union (2015) Korea, Republic Korea, 05/05/201 20/12/201 Qualified of - Viet Nam Republic of FET India 12/11/201 Signed Qualified FET Free Trade Agreement (2015) ASEAN - India Investment Agreement (2014) ASEAN-China force) China Investment (not in 15/08/200 01/01/201 Qualified FET Agreement ASEAN-Korea Korea, 02/06/200 01/09/200 Qualified Investment Republic of FET Agreement Agreement Australia, Ne 27/02/200 10/01/201 Qualified Establishing the w Zealand FET Trade Area ASEAN Brunei 26/02/200 24/02/201 Qualified Comprehensive Darussalam FET Investment Cambodia Agreement Indonesia (2009) Lao People's ASEANAustralia-New Zealand Free 10 Democratic Republic 130 130 Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam 11 12 ASEAN-EU EU 07/03/198 01/10/198 Unqualified Cooperation (European FET Agreement EU-Viet Nam Union) EU Expected Qualified Free Trade (European to be FET Agreement Union) signed ... tackling the disputes with foreign investors, specially the disputes related to the FET clause Structure of the thesis Chapter An overview of Investor - State Dispute Settlement and Fair and Equitable. .. provide the transparent investment environment for the investors That is the best way to prevent the investor- state disputes on the FET claims 22 22 Chapter A N O V E R V I E W O F T H E I N V. .. obligations can be violated even if foreign investors are treated as nationals of the host state and the breach of national treatment can be found even the investors are treated in the fair and equitable