Originally from American Review of International Arbitration - ARIA

Preview Page

INVESTMENT TREATIES AND INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION:
THE JAPANESE PERSPECTIVE
Koichi Miki*
 

 I. JAPAN’S POLICY REGARDING THE PROMOTION OF INVESTMENT TREATIES

Investment treaties, whether they are bilateral investment treaties ("BITs") or
free trade agreements ("FTAs") or economic partnership agreements ("EPAs"),
have emerged as leading global vehicles to complement the WTO scheme and to
bolster economic relationships among nations. Their use is dramatically increasing
in importance. In recognition of this, the government of Japan has been
developing a basic policy to promote investment treaties consistent with this
unquestionable world trend.1

Japan is currently a party to 25 investment treaties, consisting of 15 BITs and
ten EPAs containing investment chapters. These 25 treaties can be categorized
into three groups.

The first group falls into the traditional type of investment protection treaty.
Japan entered into nine BITs between 1977 and 2002, before a more systematic
policy was adopted, as follows:

● Egypt (1977, 1978)2
● Sri Lanka (1982, 1982)
● China (1988, 1989)
● Turkey (1992, 1993)
● Hong Kong (1997, 1997)
● Bangladesh (1998, 1999)
● Russia (1998, 2000)
● Pakistan (1998, 2002)
● Mongolia (2001, 2002)

The second group is a more modern type of investment treaty containing
regulations against barriers to entry by foreign capital. Japan entered into six BITs
in this category between 2002 and 2009, as follows:

● Korea (2002, 2003)
● Viet Nam (2003, 2004)
● Cambodia (2007, 2008)
● Laos (2008, 2008)
● Uzbekistan (2008, 2009)
● Peru (2008, still pending)