自由論題［研究論文］

Effectiveness of International
Investment Agreements
投資協定の締結効果
Akiko Saito

Doctoral Program, Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University

齊藤 安希子慶應義塾大学大学院政策・メディア研究科後期博士課程
Correspondence to: akiko3@sfc.keio.ac.jp

Osamu Kurita

Professor, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Administration Engineering, Keio
University

栗田 治
慶應義塾大学理工学部管理工学科教授

Abstract:

This research addressed a question on which country/countries are likely to havedeveloped “effective” positioning by concluding international investment agreements(IIAs), by using data for 100 countries based on the large number of IIAs that eachcountry has concluded. The effectiveness, or the “advantage of position” of IIAs in
this research, is examined by the calculation of eigenvector centrality. Our conclusions
included that China has the most effective positioning in having IIAs among theselected 100 countries in this research.
本稿では、投資協定の締結によりどの国が「効果的」なポジションを築いているか、について考察した。締結済の投資協定の数が上位 100 の国を対象とし、各国が締結した投資協定数及び締結国のデータを用いて固有ベクトル中心性の計算式に基づき検証した。その結果、対象国のうち、投資協定の締結により中国が最も効果的なポジションを有している旨等を結論づけた。

Keywords: international investment agreements, eigenvector centrality, 100 countries
投資協定、固有ベクトル中心性、100 か国

230

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

1

Introduction
International investment-related agreements primarily consist of either

investment chapters in Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)/Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs) or International Investment Agreements (IIAs). The number ofinternational investment-related agreements has been increasing, especially since theyear 2000. There are more than 2,600 such agreements in force as of September 10,
2020 1). Investment-related rules are also included in World Trade Organization(WTO) agreements, under the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures(TRIMS), but no further developments or agreements have been made since, due tothe stagnation of the most recent round of negotiations 2). Instead, and as a result, thenumber of concluded EPAs/FTAs with investment related provisions and IIAs is
increasing. Because EPAs/FTAs and IIAs are concluded among the participating
countries (parties) of the negotiations, it is, in general, easier to reach an agreementcompared with those of the WTO, which basically require agreement among its morethan 160 member countries.
IIAs and investment chapters of EPAs/FTAs are important for companies thatinvest in overseas countries, as these agreements are relevant to the protection of
investments. There is a high demand from business sectors for the conclusion ofinternational investment-related agreements. As for Japan, the policy paper “Callingfor Accelerated Conclusion of Investment Agreements” (2015) by Keidanren 3), an
economic organization in Japan in which most of the countryʼs large and leading
companies are the members, asked to conclude more investment-related agreements.
Keidanren also occasionally urges this conclusion, while also requesting the inclusionof important elements in speciﬁc negotiations, such as Japan-EU (European Union)
EPA and the Trans-Paciﬁc Partnership Agreement 4). Similar requests have also been
made by other organizations 5) in Japan. In addition, given the stagnation of WTO
negotiations for rule making, as well as the increase of international investmentrelated agreements globally, the Japanese government is proactively trying toconclude agreements that include international investment-related provisions. For
example, in May 2016, the Japanese government established a plan to work on
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

231

自由論題

negotiations aiming to sign and/or achieve the enforcement of international
investment-related agreements (IIAs and EPAs/FTAs with investment chapters)
covering 100 countries/regions by 2020, which is also mentioned in Japanʼs policy,“Growth Strategy 2018 (Basic Outlook and Key Strategies)” 6). The Japanese
government has been working to conclude international investment-relatedagreements based on this policy.
One question we need to ask here is the impact of agreements. Previous studies
had examined the impact, political and economic contributions and implications, ofthe IIAs. A study by Urata (2015) 7), based on the analysis of foreign direct investment
by Japanese ﬁrms by examining the data of 97 countries from 1980-2012, concluded
that EPAs, FTAs, and IIAs have positive impacts on foreign direct investment by
Japanese firms. This research is an example of endeavours to see the impact ofagreement by studying the agreements that were concluded. This research is anotherendeavour to see the impact of agreements, analyzing the dynamics among thecountries that concluded IIAs. To be more precise, the purpose of this research is toaddress a question on which countries are likely to have “effective” positioning by the
IIAs that they have concluded. The effectiveness, or the “advantage of position” oreffective positioning 8) in this research, is examined by the eigenvector centrality, by
the combination of the number of agreements and the counterpart countries of IIAs
for respective countries. The calculation shows which country/countries are likely to
be at the “center” of IIA agreements globally, which was quantitatively calculated
based on an assumption that the effects of concluded agreements act cumulatively. In
order to address the question, the paper ﬁrstly analyzes the relationships among the
15 countries, namely, Japan, Germany, China, Switzerland, Turkey, the United
Kingdom, France, Egypt, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the RussianFederation, the United States, India, and Brazil. Then, secondly, the paper analyzes alarger sample of 100 countries, in order to examine their effectiveness or effective
positionings.

232

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements2 I nternational Investment Agreement and the definition of“effectiveness”
As overseas investment increases globally, the number of international investmentrelated agreements has also increased. The purpose of such agreements is mainly toprotect the “investment” 9). There are also types of agreements that contribute inliberalization such as gaining market access and covering pre investment, in addition
to protection of the investors and investments. Usually, IIAs are easier to conclude
than EPAs/FTAs, as IIAs are focused speciﬁcally on investment, while EPAs/FTAs
generally include other treatments and obligations, such as tariff reduction, services,
etc., which often makes these agreements more complicated and harder to conclude.
Apart from the geopolitical, political, and economic beneﬁts at the State level, thebenefits are for the investors of the country that invest in foreign countries. For
example, if country Aʼs investor invests in country B, country Aʼs investor as well as
its investment are protected under an investment agreement between A and B. Eachagreement is a result of negotiations between or among the negotiating parties, which
theoretically and practically makes each agreement unique. However, many of theagreements, especially those which were concluded in later years, usually include thefollowing 10): Definition and Scope (of investment), Most-Favored Nation (MFN),
National Treatment (Pre-establishment/Post-establishment) 11), Prohibition of
Performance Requirements 12), Fair and equitable treatment 13), Umbrella Clause 14),
Expropriation and compensation for losses, Transfer, Subrogation, Dispute Settlement
Mechanism (Investor State Dispute Settlement). Among the provisions, Most Favored
Nation (MFN) is the most relevant clause to this research. MFN is a principle thatprevents countries from discriminating between the respective trading partners 15).
MFN aims to “treat other people equally” 16), and has a function designed to “grant
someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of theirproducts) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members” 17). Therefore, forexample, when country A concludes an IIA with country B, country A must also
provide the same treatment, including other rights and obligations mentioned above,
to its future counterparts resulting from the IIA as it has given to country B, if the IIA
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

233

自由論題

between A and B includes an MFN clause stating such obligation18). This, MFN, isthe fundamental concept of the WTO and GATT rules as well, as it facilitates trade
without discrimination 19). With IIAs, the right for foreign investors or obligations to
the host countries transferred through MFN is also important as many of themincluded provisions on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which works as ameans to settle disputes between investors and Host State. ISDS provides foreign
investors with the right to access an international and third party tribunal to resolve
investment disputes. Among more than 1,000 ISDS cases as of the end of August
2020, there are around 100 ISDS cases that claimed the violation of MFN 20). The
analysis by this research is especially relevant as most of IIAs include the MFN
treatment, and is conducted based on an assumption that all IIAs include an MFN
clause 21). This paper sets an assumption that all IIAs include MFN Clause 22), andconsiders that a country that has created the most effective positioning among theother countries is the one that most cumulatively gathers the rights, including thetransferred ones through MFN23).
The pace and number of the concluded agreements per country differ. The
tendency of the conclusion of IIAs in terms of the numbers by the year was examined
in Figure 1 for the selected 15 countries, namely, Japan, Germany, China,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, France, Egypt, South Korea, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, the United States, India, and Brazil. These
countries were chosen according to the following categories: 1) countries that have ahigh number of international investment-related agreements 24) (Germany,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Turkey, China, Switzerland, the United Kingdom,France, Egypt, South Korea), 2) emerging countries (BRICs, Brazil, Russia, India,(and China, which is also included in the first category)), and 3) the country thatmakes the largest overseas investment (the United States), and 4) Japan.
Figure 1 is created based on the number (accumulated) of IIAs for respective
countries. As shown in the graph, the accumulation of the numbers by year for therespective countries and the tendencies, such as when the respective countries: 1)
started to conclude IIAs, 2) rapidly increased their number of IIAs, and 3) stopped or234

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

moderately concluded their IIAs, etc., differ from country to country. Figure 1 showsthat Japan and Brazil are the countries that have increased their numbers of concluded
IIAs at the highest pace in recent years. As for Japan, it could be assumed that its
increase in recent years is in accordance with its aforementioned policy on the
conclusion of international investment-related agreements. Furthermore, it is also
understandable that Japan implemented such a policy, especially when comparedwith countries in Europe that have a large number of IIAs. On the other hand, there
are a few countries whose numbers of the IIAs are not increasing or which remain at
a moderate pace. For example, the United States has concluded only few IIAs since1999. The United States increased its free trade agreements that include chapter oninvestments, instead, which might be the cause. Germany, the country that has themost international investment-related agreements (a combination of IIAs and EPAs/
FTAs), has also only concluded a moderate number of IIAs in recent years. This isalso true for several other countries, especially in European Union (EU), such as theUnited Kingdom and the Netherlands. This is relevant to the fact that EU as a wholenegotiates and concludes trade and investment-related agreements such as free trade
agreement. The trend for developing countries, such as India and Brazil, might be inline with their developments. Both countries concluded their ﬁrst IIAs in 1994, rather
recent especially compared with other countries. However, they have since increased
their numbers of concluded IIAs. In the case of India, its steady increase in the paceof its IIAs might be as a result of the interests of its counterpart countries. There is apossibility that other countries are interested in having IIAs with India as theirinvestors (namely, the investors of the countries that concluded IIAs with India) aim
to make investments in India.

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

235

自由論題

International Investment Agreements of respective countries
180
⑤
⑨

140

⑬

120
100
⑩

80
60

② ⑥

③
⑦

⑪

⑭

⑮

④

⑧

40

①
⑫
2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

0

Before 1989

20

2019

Number of concluded IIAs

160

Year
①Japan⑤Germany⑨China⑬Switzerland②France⑥Egypt⑩UK⑭Netherlands③Luxenbourg⑦South Korea⑪Turkey⑮India④Russian Federation⑧US⑫BrazilFigure 1 IIAs of respective 15 countries
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

3

Methodology
The benefits gained by each country as a result of concluding IIAs are

considered to be transmitted to partner countries, and vice versa, because of MFN
Clauses; that is, the profit or obligation of one country reflects that of the partnercountries, and there is an inherent structure in which the home country also produces
benefits for the partner countries. The “advantage of position,” or effective
positioning, or the “effectiveness” of IIAs in this research, is examined by the
eigenvector centrality. The eigenvector centrality is a good tool for expressing such a
chained proﬁt propagation structure. This index is mathematically equivalent to what
is called “advantage of position” in the ﬁeld of urban engineering and “page rank” inthe field of network science. The main point of this research is to examine thefollowing: to what extent each country plays a central role. To examine, this research236Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

mathematically positions each country, based on data that shows the relationships
between and among the countries. In the fields of mathematical sociology,
information engineering, and urban geography, there are indexes for measuring thecentrality of the subject based on the networking structure or state of connection
between subjects such as eigenvector centrality (what is called advantage of positionin the field of urban geography), Katz centrality, page rank, degree centrality,
closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. This research uses eigenvector
centrality for the following reasons. Firstly, eigenvector centrality is an index that hasa feature of receiving a positive contribution from the centrality of the connectedsubjects, and at the same time, exerting the influence of its own centrality to theconnected subjects. As it is assumed that the greater the beneﬁts one country receives
by its connectivity with other countries through agreements, the more it also gives thebenefits to the partner countries, eigenvector centrality is an effective method toanalyze based on the purpose of this research. Secondly, as the network among thecountries which was developed by the concluded agreements constitutes a connected
graph, the adjacency matrix is irreducible. Therefore, this research especially did not
use Katz centrality which is used to analyze the similar cases but only when they are
not irreducible.
The effectiveness in this paper is examined by the combination of the number ofagreements and the counterpart countries of IIAs for respective countries, therefore
showing which country/countries are likely to be at the “center” of IIA agreements
globally or effectively positioning itself among the countries. This research firstly
examines the selected 15 countries (n=15 countries) which were chosen according to
the aforementioned categories. This research then enlarges the number of countries
and examines the 100 countries (n=100 countries) 25). Those 100 countries are
selected by the number of the agreements that they have concluded, from the top to
the 100th. The data on the concluded investment-related agreements of the respective
countries, both data for those 15 and 100 countries in this research, are based on
publicly available data published by the United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD) (accessed in May and June 2019).
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

237

自由論題

The relationships among the countries, based on their concluded IIAs, were
examined using the following procedure: 1) to make an n × n square adjacent matrix
A=[aij] among the countries - if there is an investment-related agreement between the
countries, put “1” for the element aij and aji of the matrix A=[aij], and if not, then put“0” , and 2) to derive the eigenvector of the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix A.
We used Mathmatica for the calculations. The value of the i-th element of theeigenvector was called the eigenvector centrality of i-th country. If matrix A is givenby the adjacency matrix of the traﬃc network, the eigenvectors can be regarded ashaving “advantage of position”. Furthermore, if the adjacency matrix A is given by
the link relation of the web site, the well-known “page rank” can also be obtained.
The meaning of the elements of the eigenvectors associated with the largest
eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix is explained as follows. The adjacency matrix A is
a (0,1) matrix, which is an n-th order real symmetric matrix corresponding to thenumber of vertices of the plotted graph. The eigenvalue λ and eigenvector x of thisadjacency matrix A are expressed as:(1)Here, according to the Peron-Frobenius theorem, A has the largest positive
eigenvalue, while the largest eigenvalue belongs to the eigenvector consisting ofnonnegative components. This “component xi of the eigenvector belonging to thelargest eigenvalue” is called the eigenvector centrality of the vertex i. Furthermore,from equation (1),(2)
is obtained. If a vertex is connected to either vertices with a large centrality value or
many vertices, the centrality value tends to be large. Thus, this is an effective andunique method that describes the intensity of vertices recursively, based on theadjacency between vertices. An image of the matrix is shown in Table 1.

238

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements
Table 1 Image of the matrix of 100 countries (first 15 countries as a sample here)
NumberNumber Country

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Germany Nether France United Switzer Luxem Romania Czech Belgium Spain China Finland Sweden Italy Bulgaria
lands
Kingdom landbourg
Republic
1 Germany
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2 Netherlands
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3 France
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
4 United Kingdom
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
5 Switzerland
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
6 Luxembourg
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
7 Romania
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8 Czech Republic
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9 Belgium
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
10 Spain
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
11 China
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
12 Finland
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
13 Sweden
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
14 Italy
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
15 Bulgaria
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

The matrix is then calculated using both the formula and Mathmatica in order toproduce the ﬁgures as shown in Table 2. The larger the number, the more “effective”
positioning that the country has in terms of this research. The country with higher
number for eigenvector centrality is considered to have developed more effective
positioning in the world by concluding IIAs, in this paper.
Table 2 Sample of the outcome of 100 countries (first 10 countries as a sample here)#
country
1 China
2 Turkey
3 Czech Republic
4 Romania
5 Egypt
6 Ukraine
7 Germany
8 South Korea
9 India
10 France

eigenvector centrality
0.168373
0.163743
0.160481
0.152470.148388
0.144384
0.143708
0.143623
0.140993
0.138638

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

239

自由論題

4

Literature studies
There is no previous research that examined IIAs and/or effectiveness of MFN

by using the same methodology of this research. Previous studies which are relevantto this research could primarily be those that dealt with networking. There is an
accumulation of studies that investigated the networks and connections between or
among places on trade and investments, especially in the ﬁeld of economics. Studies
include categories such as spatial economy and gravity model. Baldwin and Okubo(2005) concluded that re-locating to the big region is most attractive for the mostproductive firms, and Baldwin and Okubo (2006) showed “how more productiveﬁrms sort themselves to the large core region” 26). Those studies, however, did not use
eigenvector centrality to analyze. Other researches on networking that usedeigenvector centrality are the following. Iino et al. (2018) examined how the researchcollaboration of firms affects the quality of their innovation outcomes by using
comprehensive patent data for firms in the world, and showed that researchcollaboration substantially improves the quality of innovation of ﬁrms by combininga variety of knowledge in the collaboration. This study was based on a paper inJapanese, Iino et al. (2017), which considered eigenvector centrality to examine theeffects. Yasumono and Itohisa (2013) investigated the networks in the process ofcross-industrial standardization by using eigenvector centrality. Ukai and Kurita(2003) examined theoretical value for advantage of position associated with traﬃc
network, by analyzing an eigenvector of the adjacency matrix corresponding to traﬃc
network. In addition, in terms of MFN and its effects, among the accumulations ofstudies on MFN, a few studies examined the effects of MFN relevant to tariff
reduction which could also be considered as the effects of networking among thecountries. These studies considered more on trade side of WTO and FTA schemes,
rather than MFN in IIAs, and did not use the same methodology of this research 27).

5

Analysis on 15 selected countries
The analysis was conducted, ﬁrstly, among the selected 15 countries. Following

the aforementioned methodology, if there is an agreement between country A and240

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

country B, then “1” was recorded in the cell where country A and country B intersect.
If there is none, then a “0” was used, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3 The matrix of IIAs concluded among the 15 countries
#

1
1
1
1

Luxen Nether
Germany Japanbourg lands
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

South
Switzer
RussianChina
India Brazil
Korea
land
Federation
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1

country

Egypt Turkey

1 Egypt
2 Turkey
3 South Korea
4 China
Russian5
Federation
6 India
7 Brazil
8 Switzerland
9 UK
10 France
11 Luxenbourg
12 Netherlands
13 Germany
14 Japan
15 US
Total

0
1
1
1

1
0
1
1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
13

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
12

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
11

0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
11

0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
7

UK

FranceUS1
1
00

The results were calculated and plotted using Mathematica under the
aforementioned methodology, which is shown in Table 4. The plotted graph based on
the results is shown in Figure 2. The vertical line of Figure 2 shows the result of
eigenvector centrality and the horizontal line is the attributed number of the countries
in the data table, Table 3 (ﬁrst one is Egypt and the last one is the United States for
Figure 2, based on the order in Table 3).

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

241

自由論題
Table 4 Results of the 15 countries#

country
eigenvector centrality
1 South Korea
0.344309
2 Turkey
0.337382
3 Egypt
0.337382
4 China
0.327512
5 India
0.313953
6 Russian Federation
0.305329
7 Switzerland
0.225985
8 UK
0.225985
9 France
0.225985
10 Luxenbourg
0.225985
11 Netherlands
0.225985
12 Germany
0.19377
13 Brazil
0.175989
14 Japan0.142077
15 US
0.103408

times (#15's as 1)
3.32963.262613.26261
3.167170.03605
2.95265
2.18536
2.18536
2.18536
2.18536
2.18536
1.873831.70188
1.373941

number of IIAs
13
13
13
12
11
11
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
4
3

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 2 Plotted graph by the eigenvector centrality based on Table 4 28)

South Korea is marked in a circle, Turkey is marked in a square, Egypt ismarked in a triangle, in Figure 2. These countries are the top three countries in termsof having “effectiveness.” China, marked in doubled circle, is the fourth. The results
shown above imply the following: the number of IIAs works positively to the result,242

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

as those three countries that have the highest number of IIAs (South Korea, Turkey,
and Egypt) all came in the top three of the calculation. However, the results regarding
the outcome figure highlight the difference, which is relevant to the counterpart
countries of the respective countries. The same applies to those countries that haveseven IIAs respectively, namely, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, France,
Luxenbourg, the Netherlands, and Brazil. While all countries except Brazil have thesame ﬁgure for eigenvector centrality, Brazilʼs eigenvector centrality is lower than theothers. Among those top three countries that had the same number of IIAs, as well as
the 15 countries as a whole, South Korea has the most effective positioning due to the
IIAs that it had concluded. This shows that South Korea has more beneﬁt comparedwith other countries, including those countries which had the same number of IIAs,
due to its counterpart countries. Japan ranked fourteenth, the second to the last of the
15 countries, which is primarily due to its small number of IIAs among the countries.
Separately, Japan has been increasing EPAs/FTAs that included investment chapter.
This research only covers IIAs and does not cover EPAs/FTAs, but if it did, theranking would be different. This also applies to other countries such as the UnitedStates that tend to conclude EPAs/FTAs in recent years.

6

Analysis on 100 countries
This research then expanded the scope to 100 countries, following the sameprocedure as that used with the initial 15 countries, as described above. The results,
ranked from the higher ﬁgures to lower of the eigenvector centrality, are shown in
Table 5. Figure 3 used a data table in which the numbers were attributed according to
the number of concluded IIAs (the largest is on the left). The vertical in Figure 3
shows the effectiveness of the respective countries (the larger the amount, the more
effective).

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

243

自由論題
Table 5 Results of the 100 countries#

country
1 China
2 Turkey
3 Czech Republic
4 Romania
5 Egypt
6 Ukraine
7 Germany
8 South Korea
9 India
10 France
11 Russian Federation
12 Kuwait
13 Bulgaria
14 Hungary
15 Switzerland
16 Poland
17 Belgium
18 Luxembourg
19 United Arab Emirates
20 Viet Nam
21 Slovakia
22 United Kingdom
23 Netherlands
24 Croatia
25 Iran, Islamic Republic of
26 Italy
27 Spain
28 Belarus
29 Indonesia
30 Finland
31 Sweden
32 Lithuania
33 Malaysia
34 Kazakhstan
35 Argentina
36 Morocco
37 Austria
38 Jordan
39 Uzbekistan
40 Latvia
41 Pakistan
42 Serbia
43 Azerbaijan
44 Albania
45 Lebanon
46 Tunisia
47 Mongolia
48 Greece
49 Qatar
50 Denmark

eigenvector centrality times (#100's as 1) number of IIAs
0.168373
54.42389
0.163743
52.9264840.160481
51.8722850.1524749.282976
0.148388
47.963374
0.144384
46.66970
0.143708
46.450679
0.143623
46.4231730.140993
45.573171
0.138638
44.811976
0.136695
44.183767
0.136387
44.084266
0.136259
44.042764
0.134025
43.320764
0.133927
43.28973
0.133394
43.11763
0.131297
42.439171
0.130487
42.177271
0.126782
40.979664
0.124755
40.324460
0.124544
40.256258
0.124485
40.237166
0.123891
40.045267
0.123376
39.878757
0.121408
39.242559
0.120294
38.882463
0.12010638.821763
0.118857
38.41858
0.117609
38.014858
0.1159737.484960
0.1159737.484960
0.11519537.234355
0.113318
36.627855
0.112074
36.225650
0.111879
36.162555
0.111568
36.062151
0.110102
35.588356
0.108943
35.213751
0.105962
34.250148
0.100728
32.5582460.100723
32.556749
0.10062
32.523345
0.0998117
32.262146
0.0997011
32.226344
0.0972863
31.445844
0.0968946
31.3192
44
0.0968591
31.3077
43
0.0958104
30.968744
0.0957179
30.938847
0.0948224
30.649447

244

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements#
country
eigenvector centrality times (#100's as 1) number of IIAs
51 Slovenia
0.0946451
30.5921
41
52 Moldova, Republic of
0.0939537
30.3686
43
53 North Macedonia
0.0928651
30.0167
39
54 Bosnia and Herzegovina
0.0894846
28.92438
55 Portugal
0.0891477
28.8151
43
56 Chile
0.0887885
28.69944
57 Algeria
0.0880593
28.463440
58 Armenia
0.0879235
28.419441
59 Singapore
0.0872754
28.21
41
60 Cuba
0.0856456
27.6832
42
61 Syrian Arab Republic
0.0850121
27.4784
39
62 Tajikistan
0.0814896
26.339835
63 Philippines
0.0791129
25.5716
36
64 Kyrgyzstan
0.0788764
25.4952
35
65 Yemen
0.0786523
25.4227
34
66 Thailand
0.0780311
25.221935
67 Georgia
0.0771523
24.9379
33
68 Oman
0.0758647
24.521733
69 Israel
0.0752611
24.3266
36
70 Estonia
0.0725275
23.44332
71 Mexico0.0696468
22.511932
72 United States of America
0.0689183
22.276435
73 Uruguay
0.0680177
21.9853
32
74 Bahrain
0.0678879
21.9434
30
75 Bangladesh
0.0653208
21.1136
29
76 Ethiopia
0.0650065
21.01228
77 Libya
0.0618126
19.9796
28
78 Sri Lanka
0.0602703
19.481127
79 Malta
0.0600823
19.420426
80 Peru
0.0599383
19.3738
30
81 Saudi Arabia
0.0590866
19.098525
82 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic
0.0585271
18.917728
83 Senegal
0.0583377
18.856526
84 Cambodia
0.0582265
18.820526
85 Cyprus
0.056511
18.266
26
86 Montenegro
0.0561011
18.1335
26
87 Lao People's Democratic Repub
0.0539715
17.4452
25
88 Mozambique
0.0529878
17.127223
89 Mauritius
0.0526951
17.0326
22
90 Japan
0.051968
16.797626
91 Canada
0.0515829
16.673125
92 Paraguay
0.0510348
16.4959
24
93 Panama0.0503976
16.29
23
94 Australia
0.0488738
15.797422
95 Guatemala
0.0453134
14.6466
19
96 Costa Rica
0.0413017
13.3499
19
97 El Salvador
0.0390835
12.632919
98 Norway
0.0354365
11.4541
16
99 Iceland
0.0203221
6.5687
9100 Ireland
0.00309378
1
1

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

245

自由論題

0.15

0.10

0.05

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 3 Plotted graph of 100 countries based on the list of 100 countries

As the table shows, in general, the more the number of IIAs the country has, thehigher the country tends to rank in this calculation. However, again, the number ofconcluded agreements itself does not determine the rank of the effectiveness, but also
who the partners are does. In Figure 3, China is marked in a circle, Turkey is marked
in a square, and Czech Republic is marked in a triangle. These are the top three
countries among the 100 countries. In terms of IIAs, these top three countries
therefore have the most “effective” positions among the 100 countries. Although
Turkey has smaller number of IIAs than Czech Republic, it has more “effective”
position. This is due to the counterpart countries of the agreements. Turkey has
agreements with the countries whose agreements, in total, exceeds the number of
those of Czech Republicʼs partner counties.
China, which ranked fourth among the 15 countries, ranked ﬁrst among the 100
countries 29). China has the most effective position among those 100 countries, interms of its conclusions of IIAs and the benefits it may have received from theagreements. South Korea, which ranked the first among the 15 countries, ranked
eighth among the 100 countries. One of the reasons is that China has more IIAs than246

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

South Korea when the counterpart countries are expanded to 100. The results also
imply that China could be at the center of the rule making process of international
investment-related agreements in terms of IIAs, especially as it has been concluding
so many IIAs. Again, each agreement is the result of mutual agreements of theparticipating countries. Each agreement is unique though there are some tendencies
in what kinds of obligations are included in the agreements which are relevant toprotection of foreign investors and investments in host countries. The degree of suchprotection, as well as whether or not to include obligations relevant to liberalizationof investment differentiate the quality of the agreements.
It could be assumed in terms of the Czech Republic, which is a current EU
member country but which only joined in 2004, much later than the bloc's founding
members, that other countries, including developed countries of EU members, needed
an investment-related agreement with the Czech Republic, and that this resulted in
the country's large number of concluded IIAs. A similar situation may also be true forother countries in Eastern Europe given their high ranks, Romania ranking in fourth,
Ukraine in sixth, Bulgaria in thirteenth, and Hungary in fourteenth. These countries'
economic relationships with the most developed countries in EU, such as Germany,
France, and the United Kingdom, might be the key for the large number of concluded
IIAs for Turkey, the Czech Republic, and other countries in Eastern Europe that are
tightly clustered to those developing countries.
Japan ranked fourteenth among the 15 countries and ranked ninetieth among the
100 countries. These ranks illustrate that Japan is not currently in a position to havethe effective or influential position among these countries, be it the selected 15 or100, in terms of concluding IIAs. Japanʼs relatively small number of IIAs may be theresult of its policy prioritizing multilateral schemes, such as WTO agreements, rather
than concluding bilateral agreements such as IIAs and EPAs/FTAs, until in the early
2000s. It is possible that effectiveness of Japan may increase in due course though,especially as the number of concluded IIAs is expected to increase following the
aforementioned policy to conclude more international investment-related agreements.
As for the United States, the data shows its weak effectiveness compared to the
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

247

自由論題

other 99 countries, while the same was also true among the selected 15 countries.
This is a result of the relatively small number of IIAs that the United States hadconcluded compared with those countries which ranked highly. The United States has
only concluded a small number of IIAs since 1999 and is more inclined to conclude
EPAs/FTAs, which is assumed to be the main reasons of its low rank in this research.

7

Conclusion
This research addressed which country/countries are likely to have “effective”

positioning by the IIAs, by using compiled data for total of 100 countries based on
the large number of IIAs that each country has concluded. The research results show
the following: Firstly, a country that has the most effective positioning among the 100
countries, thus in the world, is China. China has created the most effective positioning
with the conclusions of IIAs among the selected 100 countries, which may also imply
that China could be at the center of the rule making process of international
investment-related agreements in terms of IIAs. China may also be a country that
accumulate the rights and obligations relevant to foreign investment at the mostthrough MFN provisions, as MFN provisions enables to transfer the rights andobligations of the agreements. As Chinese investors, including government funded
ones, are vigorously making overseas investments, having international relatedagreements and gaining the feasibilities for protections of investors and investment aswell as liberalization and market access would positively work for their activities.
This also applies to overseas investments under Chinaʼs Belt and Road initiatives.
Secondly, though China positions itself effectively among the 100 countries, South
Korea positions itself effectively among the selected 15 countries, many of which aredeveloped countries. As developed countries, especially the United States and someof the countries in Europe, led in developing new types of provisions that contributein protection and liberalization of investment, in general, it may be assumed that
South Korea has the beneﬁt of being transmitted rights for its investors with moresophisticated provisions.
There are also some possibilities for further studies based on this research. The

248

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

ﬁrst would be a study that considers EPAs/FTAs and other regional and comprehensive
agreements. This research primarily covered IIAs and not EPAs/FTAs. However, as
there are also similarities between the obligations stated in EPAs/FTAs and those of
IIAs, similar analysis focusing on EPAs/FTAs, or the combinations of EPAs/FTAs/
IIAs, may also produce interesting results. This is especially so due to the fact thatmany countries are currently inclined to conclude EPAs/FTAs that have provisions on
investment-related obligations. Comparing those may provide insights regarding otheraspects of international investment-related agreement, as well. The second potential
avenue for future research concerns the contents of the concluded IIAs. While thisresearch conducted a quantitative analysis on effectiveness under a deﬁnition set forthe purpose of this research, there are other ways to analyze the “effectiveness”. One
such way would be to analyze qualitatively, especially in terms of the top ranked
countries including China. Even though many of the elements in the investmentrelated provisions may be similar to each other, each agreement could be unique.
While many of the previous research on the qualitative analysis on the agreements
were conducted separately, rather than looking at proliferation of the rights andobligation through networks of countries, it may bring an interesting outcome if theresearch would successfully be able to combine the qualitative analysis of theprovisions and the qualitative analysis on proliferations as this research did. Such
research would be relevant to examining the contents of agreements that China has
concluded and to find the implications to the rule making in the world regarding
foreign investment. Such endevour is also relevant to a question if individual
agreement or a group of individual agreements is contributing in creating anenvironment for free trade. The third would be to examine the process of gaining
effectiveness. This research was based on the recent number of agreements. However,as Figure 1 of this research shows, there are difference in the development, the pace
and the number of agreements, among the countries. For example, by conducting thesame analysis following the same procedure of this research for different times, suchas by 10 years range, it may give us the idea on how certain countries have developed
the effective positioning as well as the dynamics among the countries at certain times.
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

249

自由論題

Endnotes
1)
2)

3)
4)
5)

6)

7)

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements> accessed on September
10, 2020.
Negotiations on international investment-related agreement at the WTO are in stagnation
primarily due to opposition from developing countries. As for the recent Doha Round,which started in 2001, it was already decided in 2003 that investment-related negotiations
would not be discussed within the round.
Keidanren <http://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2015/119.html> accessed 18 June 2019.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement later changed to Comprehensive and Progressive
Agreement for Trans-Paciﬁc Partnership (CPTPP).
For example, Japan Foreign Trade Council, Inc., an economic organization in Japan, issued
two requests for the facilitation for conclusion of Investment related Agreements on 18
June, 2016 (http://www.jftc.or.jp/proposals/2015/20160121_2.pdf), and June 25, 2018,(http://www.jftc.or.jp/proposals/2018/20180625_1.pdf, both in Japanese only, accessed 18
June 2019.
The Plan includes the following:“IV. Taking in Overseas Growing Markets(2) Speciﬁc measures to be newly takeni) Supporting overseas business expansion of Japanese companies② Promoting Economic partnership negotiations, and conclusion/amendment ofinvestment-related agreements and tax treaties• In order to expand free and fair markets in Asia-Paciﬁc region and across the world, theGovernment will push forward to achieve entry into force of the TPP Agreement which
Japan has concluded, and continue discussions on expansion of its member countries/
regions. The Government will also promote negotiations on other economic
partnerships strategically and expeditiously, including Japan-EU EPA, RCEP, andJapan-China-Republic of Korea FTA. Playing central roles in building such wide-area
new economic order, Japan, as the standard-bearer of free trade, aim to take the lead inestablishing comprehensive, balanced, and high-level global rules. The Government
will implement cooperation with ASEAN to realize inclusive and innovative growth in
Asian regions, and high-quality RCEP.
• Based on the ʼAction Plan for improvement of investment climate through promoting
the conclusion of investment-related agreementsʼ (announced in May 2016), theGovernment will work on negotiations aiming to sign and/or achieve entry into force ofinvestment-related agreements (investment agreements and economic partnershipagreements with Investment Chapters) covering 100 countries/regions by 2020, whilestrengthening organization. Expecting to cover eighty-two countries/regions in total,
including those that are currently under negotiation, the Government will aim to launch
new negotiations with thirteen other countries by the end of this year throughconsultation with them.”
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, <http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/
pdf/ miraitousi2017_inttv_prgrm.pdf> accessed 18 June 2019.
Urata, Shujiro (2015) “Impacts of FTAs and BITs on the Locational Choice of Foreign
Direct Investment: The Case of Japanese Firms” RIETI Discussion Paper Series 15-E-066<https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/15e066.pdf> accessed 18 June 2019.

250

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements
8)This research focused specifically on IIAs, excluding EPAs/FTAs and any othercomprehensive regional agreements that contain investment-related agreements. This isbecause this research primarily addresses rules on investment, and therefore tries to
exclude other influences related to some of the other aspects of EPAs/FTAs, which are
more comprehensive agreements than IIAs, such as tariff reduction. As this research covers
only IIAs of the respective countries, the result may be different if all investment-relatedagreements, namely the investment chapters of EPAs/FTAs and the regional agreements
are covered. For example, the member countries of the European Union, such as Germany
and France, have more investment-related agreements when regional agreements arecovered. This also applies to other countries including Japan.
9) The deﬁnition of “investment” or what to consider “investment” is usually stated at the
beginning of the respective investment-related agreement. There are also IIAs that include
elements of promotion and liberalization, in addition to protection.
10) The primary obligations of each clause or provisions are basically the same for most IIAs.
However, the detail could be different among agreements, as each is the result of
negotiations by the participating states.
11) “Under the national treatment rule, Members must not accord discriminatory treatment
between imports and “like” domestic products (with the exception of the imposition oftariffs, which is a border measure).” extracted from a report by Ministry of Economy, Tradeand Industry, <https://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/downloadﬁles/gCT0213e.pdf>, p227
accessed 18 June 2019.
12) “This provision prohibits a contracting party from imposing performance requirements thathinder the free investment activities of investors, such as export requirements, local
procurement requirements and technology transfer requirements, as conditions forinvestment and business activities of the investor in the other contracting party.” extracted
from METI, “2017 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade
Agreements—WTO, EPA/FTA and IIA,” 792.
13) “It is an “absolute”, “non-contingent” standard of treatment, i.e. a standard that states thetreatment to be accorded in terms whose exact meaning has to be determined, by reference
to speciﬁc circumstances of application, as opposed to the “relative” standards embodied in“national treatment” and “most favoured nation” principles which define the required
treatment by reference to the treatment accorded to other investment”. extracted from
OECD working papers on international investment 2004/04 “Fair and Equitable Treatment
Standard in International Investment Law” <https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentpolicy/WP-2004_3.pdf> accessed 22 June 2019.
14) METI explains the Umbrella Clause this way: “The host country has an obligation to fulﬁll
the promises made by itself to the investors (for example, permits for infrastructure
projects and resource development, granting investment incentives, contracts withinvestors, etc.). If the host country violates the commitment, the investor could use
international arbitration claiming a breach of the investment treaty, in addition to thedomestic trial based on the breach of the contract.” (Translated by the author). extracted
from METI, <http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/trade_policy/epa/investment/cases.html>
accessed 15 June, 2019.
15) WTO, <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm> accessed 15
June, 2019.
16) Ibid.
17) Ibid.

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

251

自由論題
18) There are treaties that are specifying the scope of application of MFN treatment to certain
types of activities, especially by clarifying the nature of “treatment” under the IIA. There
are treaties that excludes certain types of applications by stating in non-conforming
measures.
19) WTO website states that MFN as the principle of trade without discrimination andfoundation of the multilateral trading system. WTO, <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_
e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm> accessed August 5, 2020.
20) UNCTAD, <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement> accessed
August 5, 2020.
21) Though there are agreements without MFN, most of the agreements include MFN,
especially as it is one of the fundamental of WTO and GATT principles, in order to develop“free and fair” trade and investment environment. Also, for those agreements that do nothave MFN Clause may include the clause when concluded States make revisions orrenewed agreements. Thus, this research also does not distinguish between agreementswith MFN Clause and those without it.
22) Under MFN, receiving the “transferred rights” by MFN gives beneﬁts to foreign investorsof Country A investing in the Country B, host country, which is the counterpart country ofan IIA.
23) The authors also acknowledge that a country that receives certain rights under MFN Clausealso gives the similar rights to the third country. This means that it may increase thepossibility for the country to become a respondent of ISDS case, too, if there are relevant
obligations in the agreements.
24) These 15 countries, as well as the 100 countries of this research, were selected based on
their number of concluded EPAs/FTAs. Though this study is focused on IIAs only, it wasmore relevant to consider the number of EPAs/FTAs when choosing the countries, as someof the countries have no or only a few IIAs, but also have EPAs/FTAs that include
investment chapters. Those countries also have certain presence in the world due to their
EPA/FTA agreements.
25) Though this research focuses on IIAs, those 100 countries were selected based on their
number of concluded IIAs and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). This is due to an expected
future research that considers FTAs. This, the selection process of those 100 countries inthis paper, does not violate the purpose of this paper. In addition, the numbers used in thisresearch were based on the numbers of IIAs.
26) Baldwin, Richard and Okubo, Toshihiro (2006) “Heterogenous Firms, Agglomeration andEconomic Geography: Spatial Selection and Sorting”, Journal of Economic Geography,
6(3), p323.
27) These studies include Chowdhury (2011), Ghosh et al. (2003), Tabakis (2014), Barbalet etal. (2015), and Vanegas and Baena (2019).
28) As the numbers on the horizontal line are the attributed numbers of the respective countriesof those 15 countries, there is no correlation regarding the numbers on the horizontal line.
29) China may also be the ﬁrst in the world. This assumption is based on the fact that othercountries outside the 100 countries listed here have a limited number of IIAs and are not
likely to affect the result of the research. There are a few countries that do not have any
IIAs.

252

Effectiveness of International Investment Agreements

References
Ahn, D. (2016) The Legal and Economic Analysis of the WTO/FTA System, World Scientiﬁc
Publishing.
Baldwin, R. and Okubo, T. (2005) “Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic
geography: Spatial selection and sorting”, NBER Working Paper, No. 11650, https://www.
nber.org/papers/w11650.pdf (Accessed 15 August, 2020)
Baldwin, R. and Okubo, T. (2006) “Heterogenous Firms, Agglomeration and Economic Geography:
Spatial Selection and Sorting”, Journal of Economic Geography. 6(3), pp. 323-346.
Barbalet, F., Greenville, J., Crook, W., Gretton, P. and Breunig, R. (2015) “Exploring the Links
between Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements and Merchandise Trade”, Asia & thePacific Policy Studies. 2(3), pp. 467-484.
Barton, J. H. et al. (2006) The Evolution of the Trade Regime, Princeton University Press.
Basu Das, S. (2013) “Moving ASEAN +1 FTAs towards an Effective RCEP” ISEAS Perspective
No. 29. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Basu Das, S. and Jagtiani, R. B. (2014) “The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: New
Paradigm or Old Wine in a New Bottle?”, ISEAS Economics Working Paper No.2014-3.
Baumgartner, J. (2016) Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law, Oxford University
Press.
Bhagwati, J. and Hudec, R. eds.(1996) Fair Trade and Harmonization Vol.2, The MIT Press.
Chowdhury, S. (2011) “The Discriminatory Nature of Specific Tariffs”, The World Bank
Economic Review. 26(1), pp. 147-163.
Correa, C. M. (2004), “Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements:
Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses”, Michigan Journal of International
Law. 26(1), pp. 331-353. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1223&context=mjil
Felbermayr, G., Kimura, F., Okubo, T., Steininger, M. (2019) “Quantifying the EU-Japan
Economic Partnership Agreement”, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies.
51, pp. 110-128.
Fukunaga, Y. and Isono, I. (2013) “Taking ASEAN+1 FTAs towards the RCEP: A Mapping
Study”, ERIA Discussion Paper Series 2013-02. Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for
ASEAN and East Asia.
Ghosh, M., Perroni, C., and Whalley, J. (2003) “Developing-Country Benefits from MFN
Relative to Regional/Bilateral Trade Arrangements”, Review of International Economics.
11(4), pp. 712-728.
Hamanaka, S. (2014) Asian Free Trade Agreements and WTO Compatibility Goods, Services,
Trade Facilitation and Economic Cooperation, World Scientiﬁc.
Hayakawa, K., Ito, T., and Kimura, F. (2016) “Trade Creation Effects of Regional Trade
Agreements: Tariff Reduction versus Non-tariff Barrier Removal”, Review of Development
Economics. 20(1), pp. 317-326.
Heydon, K. and Woolcock, S. (2009) The rise of bilateralism: Comparing American, Europeanand Asian approaches to preferential trade agreements, United Nations University Press.
Iino, T., Inoue, H., Saito, Y., Todo, Y. (2017) “Kigyo kan no kyodo kenkyu network hainnovation no shituteki performance wo kojo saseruka? (Does the Global Network of
Research Collaboration Affect the Quality of Innovation?)” RIETI Discussion Paper Series
17-J-034, https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/17j034.pdf (Accessed 15 August, 2020)
Iino, T., Inoue, H., Saito, Y., Todo, Y. (2018) “How Does the Global Network of Research

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.20 No.2 2020

253

自由論題
Collaboration Affect the Quality of Innovation?” RIETI Discussion Paper Series 18-E-070,
https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/18e070.pdf (Accessed 15 August, 2020)
Kawai, M. and Ganeshan W. (Eds.) (2011) Asia’s Free Trade Agreements: How Is BusinessResponding?, Asian Development Bank and Asian Development Bank Institute, Edward
Elgar.
Qureshi, A. H. (Eds.) (2002) Perspectives in International Economic Law, Kluwer Law
International.
Tabakis, C. (2014) “Free-trade areas and special protection”, The Journal of International Trade& Economic Development. 24(8), pp. 1054-1076.
Ukai, T. and Kurita, O. (2003) “A Study on Distribution of Advantage of Position in Planar
Region Associated with Traﬃc Network - Mesh Map of Advantage of Position Based on
Tokyo Metropolitan Railway Network –”, City planning review. Special issue, Papers oncity planning. 38(3), pp. 163-168.
Ukai, T. and Kurita, O. (2005) “Theory of Activity Distribution Based on Spatial Interaction and
Its Generalization to Continuous Plane”, Architectural Institute of Japan, AIJ. (616), pp.
103-108.
Ukai, T. and Kurita, O. (2007) “A theory of geographical significance based on spatial
interaction”, Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan. 40(3), pp. 129-135.
Urata, S. (2015) “Impacts of FTAs and BITs on the Locational Choice of Foreign Direct
Investment: The Case of Japanese Firms” RIETI Discussion Paper Series. 15-E-066,
https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/15e066.pdf (Accessed 18 June, 2019)
Vanegas, J., and Baena, J. (2019) “Virtual protectionism: Overview of MFN tariffs and boundtariffs in South America”, Journal of International Studies. 12(4), pp. 63-78.
Yasumoto, M. and Itohisa, M. (2013) “Investigating the Networks in the Process of CrossIndustrial Standardization: The Case of the EV (Electronic Vehicle) Standardization inGermany”, Manufacturing Management Research Center (MMRC) of Tokyo University
Discussion Paper, http://merc.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mmrc/dp/pdf/MMRC441_2013.pdf(Accessed 15 August, 2020)〔投稿日 2020. 3. 30〕〔採録日 2020. 9. 24〕

254