首页> 外文期刊>Journal of World Investment & Trade; Law, Economics, Politics >Malaysia and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Learning From Experience
【24h】

Malaysia and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Learning From Experience

机译:马来西亚与投资者与国家之间的争端解决:汲取经验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Malaysia is an important destination for foreign direct investment and has signed more than 70 investment guarantee agreements. Most allow investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and Malaysia has been subject to three claims, including two fully argued cases: Philippe Gruslin and Malaysian Historical Salvor. Yet Malaysian companies have also utilised ISDS provisions: in MTD Equity Bhd v Chile, Telekom Malaysia v Ghana, and Ekran Berhad v China (the first-ever ISDS claim against China). These cases provide lessons for Malaysia in becoming better prepared to negotiate newer generations of investment treaties, and to defend further potential cases. Malaysia has not reacted negatively to investment treaties despite the cases filed against the country. In fact, in light of its evolving interests Malaysia has become more of a rule-maker in international investment law rather than a rule-taker. Malaysia thereby continues to liberalise its investment regime and provide better transparency - the best defence against claims.
机译:马来西亚是外国直接投资的重要目的地,已签署了70多项投资担保协议。大多数都允许投资者与国家之间的争端解决(ISDS),马来西亚已受到三项索赔,其中包括两起争议充分的案件:菲利普·格鲁斯林(Philippe Gruslin)和马来西亚历史救助组织(Malaysian Historical Salvor)。然而,马来西亚公司也利用了ISDS条款:在MTD Equity Bhd诉智利,马来西亚Telekom诉加纳和Ekran Berhad诉中国(ISDS首次针对中国的诉讼)中。这些案件为马来西亚更好地准备谈判新一代的投资条约并为进一步的潜在案件辩护提供了教训。尽管有针对马来西亚的案件,马来西亚对投资条约也没有负面反应。实际上,鉴于其不断发展的利益,马来西亚已成为国际投资法中的规则制定者,而不是规则制定者。马来西亚因此继续放宽其投资制度,并提供更好的透明度-抵御索赔的最佳辩护。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号