Insights

China-Australia Free Trade Agreement: Form of Investor-State Dispute Regime Remains Unclear

China-Australia Free Trade Agreement: Form of Investor-State Dispute Regime Remains Unclear

On November 17, 2014, China and Australia announced they had reached a Free Trade Agreement ("ChAFTA", the "Agreement"). The ChAFTA text has not been finalized, but that is expected in the coming months. At this stage, the public can only glean insights from the recently released high-level statements of key outcomes and fact sheets.

The statement of key outcomes indicates that the "investment obligations" in ChAFTA can be enforced directly by Australian and Chinese investors through an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. It also states the ISDS mechanism will include safeguards to protect each government's ability to regulate in the public interest and to pursue legitimate public welfare objectives such as public health, safety, and environmental protection.

In considering the impact of this aspect of the Agreement, is important to note that, since 1988, China and Australia have had a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The BIT provides that each country shall not take measures of expropriation or nationalisation or other measures having a similar effect relating to any investment unless the measures are in the public interest, non-discriminatory, in accordance with law, and against reasonable compensation. The BIT further provides for an Investor-State Dispute Regime for the recovery of compensation if such measures are taken.

As the text of the ChAFTA is not final, the precise scope of the investment obligations in the Agreement remains unclear. There has been no suggestion that the ChAFTA will replace the BIT, so the BIT will likely remain in force. The ChAFTA describes the investment obligations only in fairly general terms.

It has not been announced if the investment obligations in ChAFTA will also include a non-nationalization provision or other non-interference provisions coupled with rights to damages typically found in other treaties incorporating Investor-State Dispute regimes, such as the BIT. If it does, this development should be viewed as a positive for Australian investment into China and Chinese investment into Australia, and should also enhance investor confidence.

Lawyer Contacts

For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at www.jonesday.com.

Steven Fleming
Sydney
61.2.8272.0538
[email protected]

Paul A. Smith
Sydney
61.2.8272.0521
[email protected]

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.