Source: https://www.yumpu.com/ar/document/view/55599556/nurepecwtipapers909rint/7
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:52:59+00:00

Document:
usiness groups, labour unions and academia. 16 Unfortunately, the text of the investment chapter still remains confidential. A January 20, 2015 working draft of the Investment Chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership has recently leaked by the end of March 2015. 17 According to the available information, apparently the TPP investment chapter is essentially based on the 2012 US Model BIT 18 rather than the current FTAs signed by Asian countries, which is consistent with the importance of the United States as one of the pioneers in the regulation of this subject in Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 19 in 1994, and as the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) state, although in recent years has seen threatened that position. 20 In any case, the TPP would include substantive and procedural protection for foreign investment provisions. Among them, there are four issues that are of particular importance given the divergence of interests between some of the negotiating States: the scope of protection of foreign investment; the rules on transparency of investment regimes and their disputes; the emergence of state entities and foreign investors; and especially the resolution of disputes through investor-state arbitration. We will discuss these aspects separately according to the limited information accessible to date. A. The Scope of Protection of Foreign Investment in the TPP As for the definition of foreign investment, there are concerns about its breadth, which is reflected in an open letter that a significant number of lawyers, academics, judges and members of legislatures, public service, business and other legal communities in Asia and the Pacific Rim signed 2012. In that letter, it is argued that a broad definition of “investment” that would be contained in the TPP, requires that a foreign investor to make a contribution to the economy of the host country, therefore extending the protection of foreign investments far beyond foreign direct investment (FDI), to include speculative financial instruments, government permits, public procurement, intangible contract rights, intellectual property and market share. 21 However, this concern comes too late. The vast majority of countries participating in the TPP negotiations already incorporate broad definitions of investment and investor in 16 Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo de Perú, ‘Singapore. Sixth Round Of Negotiations For The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)’ (4 April 2011) accessed 25 March 2015. 17 ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter - Version 20 January 2015’ (TDM Journal (Transnational Dispute Management), 26 March 2015) accessed 1 April 2015. 18 Mélida Hodgson, ‘The Leaked TPP Investment Chapter Draft: Few Surprises . . . Is That A Surprise?’ (TDM Advance Publication, April 2015) accessed 17 June 2015. 19 Canada-Mexico-United States, ‘North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Dic. 17, 1992’ (1993) 32 International Legal Materials 289. 20 Julien Chaisse (n 11) 148. 21 TPP Legal, ‘Open Letter’ (8 May 2012) accessed 25 March 2015.
IIAs concluded precisely with other countries in the Pacific Rim, so the TPP would not add more uncertainty in the breadth of that already existing protection. 22 In fact, some have pointed out that the TPP investment chapter would limit preestablishment protection, included for long in U.S. investment agreements. 23 After defining investor of a Party as “a Party, or a national or an enterprise of a Party, that attempts to make, is making, or has made an investment in the territory of another Party”, with the purpose of providing “greater certainty” a footnote of Article II.1 clarifies what the parties understand when an investor “attempts to make” an investment, meaning that when that investor “has taken concrete action or actions to make an investment, such as channeling resources or capital in order to set up a business, or applying for permits or licenses”. 24 But this is not novel for Latin American countries negotiating the TTP – Chile, Mexico and Peru – as these limitations on pre-establishment were already considered on investment chapters of FTAs concluded with other TPP negotiating parties, like in NAFTA (1992), Japan – Mexico FTA (2004), Chile – Peru FTA (2006), Peru – Singapore FTA (2008), Mexico – Peru FTA (2012), and the Pacific Alliance Protocol (2014), 25 in almost identical terms that it is reportedly considered in the TPP investment chapter. 26 The Peru – United States FTA (2006) also include restrictions on preestablishment but with a different wording. 27 Conversely, the Chile-Canada FTA (1996), Chile-Mexico FTA (1998), Chile-United States FTA (2003), Chile-Japan FTA (2007), Australia-Chile FTA (2008), Canada – Peru FTA (2008), and Japan – Peru BIT (2008) have a broader definition of pre-establishment. 28 22 For example this happens in the FTAs signed between the US-Peru, Chile-Colombia, among many others. 23 Mélida Hodgson (n 18) 7. 24 ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment chapter - version 20 January 2015’ (n 17), Art. II.1, fn 10. 25 The Pacific Alliance was established in April 2011, and formalized by a Framework Agreement signed in Paranal, Chile on June 6, 2012. Current members are Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico. Costa Rica is finishing up the process to be incorporated as the Alliance's fifth member, and Panama is an official candidate to the bloc. Organization of American States (OAS), Foreign Trade Information System, ‘Pacific Alliance’ (Trade Policy Developments, 20 June 2014) accessed 10 July 2014. 26 NAFTA, Art. 1139; Japan – Mexico FTA, Art. 96(j); Chile-Peru FTA, Art. 11.28, footnote 15; Peru- Singapore FTA, Art. 10.1.7; Mexico-Peru FTA, Art. 11.1, footnote 1; Pacific Alliance Protocol, Art. 10.1, footnote 4 (still not in force). 27 Regarding pre-establishment, Peru-US FTA, Art. 10.28, define investor of a party as a state enterprise or a national or an enterprise of a Party, that “attempts through concrete action to make, is making, or has made an investment in the territory of another Party”. Canada-Peru FTA, Art. 847 defines investor of a party as a national or enterprise that “seeks to make, is making or has made an investment”. 28 Chile-Canada FTA, Art. G-40; Chile-Mexico FTA, Art. 9-01; Chile-United States FTA, Art. 10.27; Chile- Japan FTA, Art. 105.1(j); Canada-Peru FTA, Art. 847, Japan-Peru BIT, Art. 1(2)(b) defines investor of a party as a national or enterprise that “seeks to make, is making or has made an investment”. Australia- Chile FTA, Art. 10.1(c) indirectly does the same considering a similar definition for “investor of a non- Party”.

References: Art. 1139
 Art. 96
 Art. 11
 Art. 10
 Art. 11
 Art. 10
 Art. 10
 Art. 847
 Art. 9
 Art. 10
 Art. 105
 Art. 847
 Art. 1
 Art. 10