MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY Table of Content MASTER THESIS INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD AND LESSONS FOR VIETNAM Major: International Economics Specialization: International Trade Policy and Law Code: 8310106 Full name: Truong Thi Kim Xuyen Supervisor: Dr Vo Sy Manh STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI ABBREVIATIONS VII LIST OF FIGURES IX SUMMARY OF THESIS RESEARCH RESULTS X ABSTRACT XI INTRODUCTION .XII BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY XII LITERATURE REVIEW XIII OBJECTS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY XVIII OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY XIX METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY XX EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION OF THE THESIS XX STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS .XX CHAPTER AN OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD 1.1 AN OVERVIEW OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 1.1.1 DEFINITION OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 1.1.2 THE SPECIFIC FEATURES OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 1.2 AN OVERVIEW OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT 1.2.1 THE LITERAL MEANING OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT 1.2.2 SPECIFIC FEATURES OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT SUMMARY 11 CHAPTER REGULATION AND APPLICATION OF THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT .12 2.1 REGULATION OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS .12 2.1.1 NO FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD 14 2.1.2 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT AS AN UNQUALIFIED STANDARD 14 2.1.2.1 Stand-alone Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard 14 2.1.2.2 Fair and Equitable Treatment combined with other standards 15 2.1.2.3 FET standard with an open-ended list of State obligations 20 2.1.3 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT AS A QUALIFIED STANDARD 21 2.1.3.1 Fair and Equitable Treatment with references to Minimum Standard of Treatment 21 2.1.3.2 Fair and Equitable Treatment with references to international law 22 2.1.3.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment with references to international law 22 2.1.3.4 Fair and Equitable Treatment with “exhaustive list” of State obligations 23 2.2 APPLICATION OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS 25 2.2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IN ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS 25 2.2.2 INTERPRETATION OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS 26 2.2.2.1 Interpretation of “No Fair and Equitable Treatment Clause” 26 2.2.2.2 Interpretation of Unqualified Fair and Equitable Treatment 28 2.2.2.3 Interpretation of the Qualified Fair and Equitable Treatment 34 2.3 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT CASES OF VIETNAM 37 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 MICHAEL LEE MCKENZIE V THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM DIALASIE SAS V THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM RECOFI V THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM TRINH VINH BINH V THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM 38 40 42 45 SUMMARY 47 CHAPTER INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE HOST STATE AND LESSONS FOR VIETNAM GOVERNMENT 50 3.1 THE REFORM OF THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS .50 3.1.1 OPTIONS FOR REFORM OF THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT CLAUSE 51 3.1.1.1 The FET standard with reference to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law 51 3.1.1.2 The Fair and Equitable Treatment clause with an open-ended list of obligations 53 3.1.1.3 The Fair and Equitable Treatment clause with an “exhaustive list” of obligations 54 3.1.1.4 Omitting the FET clause 56 3.1.2 OTHER PROVISIONS LINKING TO FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT CLAUSE 57 3.1.2.1 Exception Provision 57 3.1.2.2 Most-Favoured Nation Treatment Provision 59 3.2 LESSONS FOR VIETNAM GOVERNMENT IN RESOLUTION OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT .61 3.2.1 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF VIETNAM IN THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT CLAIMS 3.2.2 THE INVESTOR’S OBLIGATIONS IN THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT CLAIMS 62 63 3.3 LESSONS FOR VIETNAM GOVERNMENT IN PREVENTION OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT .66 SUMMARY 68 CONCLUSION 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY .73 APPENDIX: LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS OF VIETNAM 82 A LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES OF VIETNAM 82 B LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN TREATIES WITH INVESTMENT PROVISIONS OF VIETNAM 86 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I, Truong Thi Kim Xuyen hereby declare, in fulfilment of the requirements of the Foreign Trade University that the thesis is my original work under the supervision of Dr Vo Sy Manh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr Vo Sy Manh who gives me guidance, support and encouragement to complete this thesis Secondly, I am also grateful to the Foreign Trade University for providing a wonderful environment for whole my period time of study Finally, a special thanks goes to Dr Cao Thi Hong Vinh for all her prompt and enthusiastic responses and support during my course ABBREVIATIONS AANZFTA ACIA ASEAN ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement Association of Southeast Asian Nations BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty CBDR Common but Differentiated Responsibility CIL COMESA Customary International Law Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CPTPP Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership DPI ECJ Department of Planning and Investment European Court of Justice ECT Energy Charter Treaty FCN Friendship, Commerce and Navigation FDI Foreign Direct Investment FET Fair and Equitable Treatment FPS Full Protection and Security FTA Free Trade Agreement GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs ICJ International Court of Justice ICSID International Center for Settlement of IIA Investment Disputes International Investment Agreement IMS International Minimum Standard IPA ISDS LCIA Investment Protection Agreement Investor-State Dispute Settlement London Court of International Arbitratio MFN Most-Favoured Nation Treatment MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment MST Minimum Standard of Treatment NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NT National Treatment OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PCA SCC Permanent Court of Arbitration Stockholm Chamber of Commerce SFC South Fork Company SFT Swiss Federal Tribunal SPC Supreme People’s Court TIP Treaty with Investment Provision UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development VIAC Vietnam International Arbitration Center WTO World Trade Organization LIST OF FIGURES Known ISDS cases filed by arbitral rules, from Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 qualified and no FET clause, signed between 1959 1987 to 31 July 2017 (Per cent) Number and share of BITs with unqualified, and 2016 13 10 SUMMARY OF THESIS RESEARCH RESULTS Being an attractive investment destination with a huge number of international investment agreements (IIAs) signed with other member states, apart from the economic benefits achieved, Vietnam has to face more legal risks arising from the claims of foreign investors on the ground of the IIAs, and one of the most concern is the breach of FET clause The study provides the legal risks arising from the unqualified FET clauses in most IIAs of Vietnam To have such conclusion, the research firstly examines the formulations of the FET in IIAs and then make a comparison between the thresholds of investors’ protection regarding to these formulations The study also examines the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases on the FET claims, specifically four cases in which Vietnam government was a respondent and the provides the elements that Vietnam government should take them into account when being sued by the foreign investors on the ground of the FET standard The thesis also goes further by analyzing the reform of FET clauses in newgeneration IIAs which is one of the most important goals in World Investment Forum in 2018 As a result, the study then argues the advantages and disadvantage of each formulation of FET so that Vietnam government can easily make a comparison and consideration between these formulations of FET when it comes to negotiating and signing new IIAs Last but not least, the study provides the Vietnamese authorities lessons and recommendations for better practice in prevention the disputes with foreign investors regarding to FET claims as well 81 10 Makane Moïse Mbengue, Stefanie Schacherer, Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Springer, 2019 11 Mann FA, British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, British Yearbook of International Law Volume 52, 1982, pp 241–254 12 Marc Jacob, Stephan Schill, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper, 24/2017, pp.700763 13 Mayeda Graham, Playing Fair: The Meaning of Fair and Equitable Treatment in Bilateral Investment Treaties, Journal of World Trade, Vol 41, 2/2007, pp 273-291 14 Muchlinski, Peter ‘Caveat Investor’? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 2006, pp 527-557 15 Nguyen Phuong D., The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in InvestorState Arbitration in Vietnam, International Arbitration Asia, 2016 16 OECD, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law, 2004 17 OECD, International Investment Law: A Changing Landscape A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives: A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives, OECD Publishing, 2005 18 Patrick Dumberry, Shopping for a better deal: The use of MFN clauses to get 'better' fair and equitable treatment protection, Arbitration International, 1/2017, pp.1-16 19 Picherack Roman, The Expanding Scope of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Have Recent Tribunals Gone Too Far?, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol 9, 4/2008, pp.1-291 82 20 Raphael de Vietri, Fair and Equitable Treatment for Foreign Investment: What is the Current Standard at International Law, International Trade and Business Law Review Annual Vol XIV, 2011, pp.414-421 21 Rumana Islam, Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in Arbitral Practice: Sustainable Development in Context, Bangladesh Journal of Law, 1/2016, pp 21-68 22 Sadiq L.O, Variability of fair and equitable treatment standard according to the development, Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.9, 4/2014, pp 229-235 23 Small Yannaca, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Recent Developments, Standards of Investment Protection, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.111-131 24 Srilal M Perera, Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons from the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part I & Part II, The Journal of World Investment & Trade Vol 13, 3/2012, pp.482-485 25 Subedi Surya P., International Investment Law: Reconciling Policy and Principle, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2008 26 Talkmore Chidede, Legal Protection of Foreign Direct Investment A Critical Assesment with Focus on South Africa and Zimbabwe, Anchor Academic Publishing, 2016 27 Thomas J Westcott, Recent Practice on Fair and Equitable Treatment, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol 8, 3/2007, pp 409-430 28 UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement II – A Sequel, 2012 83 29 UNCTAD, Investor – State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2017, 2018b 30 UNCTAD, Investor – State Dispute Settlement: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement II – A Sequel, 2014 31 UNCTAD, Recent Developments in the International Investment Regime, 2018a 32 UNCTAD, Special Update on Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Facts and Figures, 2017 33 UNCTAD, UNCTAD's Reform Package for the International Investment Regime 2018c B Books Andreas F Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, 2008 Christoph Schreuer, Introduction: Interrelationship of Standards, in “Standards of Investment Protection”, Oxford University Press, 2008 KJ Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy and Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.199 L Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy , Colombia University Press, 1979, p.47 Martins Paparinskis, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment, Oxford University Press, 2013 Roland Klager, Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2011 Rudolf Dolzer, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties, The International Lawyer, 1/2005, pp 87-106 Rumana Islam, The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Arbitration: Developing Countries in Context, Springer, Singapore, 2018 84 Stephan W Schill, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2009 C Thesis Nguyen Van T., The Protection of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under International Investment Law: A Case Study of Vietnam, Ph.D thesis in Philosophy, La Trobe University, Victoria in 2016 D Internet Materials An Khanh, Tensions between Vietnam – Netherlands and Arbitral Tribunal (Căng thẳng Việt Nam – Hà Lan Toà trọng tài (Series on Trinh Vinh Binh case – Season 4), at https://projects.voanews.com/vu-kien-trinh-vinh-binhvs-chinh-phu-vn/ky-4-cang-thang-vn-ha-lan-va-toa-trong-tai, Accessed on 14/11/2018 Business Times Singapore, S’pore: the right place for dispute settlement, 2014, at http://simc.com.sg/2014/07/05/spore-right-place-dispute-settlement/, Accessed on 05/01/2019 Lacey Yong, Sebastian Perry, ‘Vietnam Wins Treaty Claim over Medical Facility’ at http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/33307/vietnamwins-treaty-claim-medical-facility/, Accessed on 05/01/2019 Luke Eric Peterson, The Future of Moral Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2009 Mahnaz Malik, Fair and Equitable Treatment, 2009, at https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/best_practices_bulletin_3.pdf, Accessed on 21/12/2018 Nguyen, Dang, Luan, The International Arbitration Review, 2018, at https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-international-arbitration-reviewedition-9/1171773/vietnam , Accessed on 05/01/2019 85 OECD, OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Viet Nam 2018, at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/oecd-investmentpolicy-reviews-viet-nam-2017_9789264282957-en , Accessed on 05/01/2019 Oxford Dictionaries, definition of https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/april , “fair”, at Accessed on 12/11/2018 Rouse, The EVFTA: A Breakthrough for Vietnam – EU Relations, Lexology, 2015, at www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3bb2a3a-8c92-409b- bd3e-ac3ee2f9c26c, Accessed on 21/12/2018 10 Szolnoki Leo, Vietnam Faces New Treaty Claim, 2014, at http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/32414/vietnam-faces-newtreaty-claim/, Accessed on 05/01/2019 11 Thai S., French investor loses lawsuit against Vietnamese government, at http://www.thanhniennews.com/business/french-investor-loses-lawsuitagainst-vietnamese-government-37044.html, Accessed on 25/11/2018 12 Thang Q., Why did Mr Trinh Vinh Binh sue Vietnam government for 1.25 billion USD in compensation (Vì ơng Trịnh Vĩnh Bình kiện Chính phủ đòi 1,25 tỷ USD? in Vietnamese), at http://www.thanhniennews.com/business/french-investor-loses-lawsuitagainst-vietnamese-government-37044.html, Accessed on 24/10/2018 13 Thao Ha Phuong, International investment disputes and the lessons, 2015, at http://baophapluat.vn/doanh-nhan/tranh-chap-dau-tu-quoc-te-va-bai-hockinh-nghiem-222640.html, Accessed on 06/01/2019 14 UNCTAD, Mapping of IIA clauses, https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Pages/mapping-of-iia-clauses#fair Accessed on 15/01/2019 at , 86 15 Vietnamplus, The La Haye Court decision in favor of Vietnam government, 2014, at https://www.vietnamplus.vn/toa-an-la-haye-phan-quyet-chinh-phuviet-nam-thang-kien-vu-dialasie/299733.vnp, Accessed on 05/01/2019 16 Vo Anh T., A central state organ for coordifation og international investment disputes (in Vietnamese: Cần quan điều phối tranh chấp đầu tư quốc tế cấp trung ương), at http://baophapluat.vn/tu-phap/can-mot-co-quan-dieuphoi-tranh-chap-dau-tu-quoc-te-cap-trung-uong-399285.html , Accessed on 05/02/2019 17 Weil, P., “The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship of a Menage a Trois”, ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Journal, 401/2000, pp.401- 416 D Legislation Decision No 04/2014/QD-TTg on Promulgation of the Regulation on Coordination in Resolution of International Investment Disputes Swiss Private International Law Act in 1987 Vietnamese Law on Foreign Investment in 1987 Vietnamese Law on Foreign Investment in 2014 E Cases Alpha Projektholding GMBH v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/07/16, IIC 464, 20 October 2010 American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc v Republic of Zaire, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1, 21 February, 1997 ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/08/2 Azurix v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Final Award, 14 July 2006 Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi AS v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID No ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction , 14 November 2005 87 Biwater v.Tanzania, ICSID Case No.ARB/05/22 and Vivendiv.Argentina, ICSID Case No.ARB/97/3 Bryan Cockrell v The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, PCA Case No 201503, 2014 Cervin Investissements S.A and Rhone Investissements S.A v Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No ARB/13/2), Award, March 2017 CMS v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005 10 ConocoPhillips and Perenco v The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, UNCITRAL, 2017 11 Desert Line Projects v Yemen, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1 12 Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award, 31 October 2012 13 DialAsie SAS v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL, 2011 14 Duke Energy v Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/04/19, Award, 18 August 2008 15 Enron v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007 16 Generation Ukraine, Inc v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9 17 Genin vs Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001 18 Hamester v Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010 19 International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico, Award, IIC 136 (2006), 26th January 2006, Ad Hoc Tribunal (UNCITRAL) 20 Joseph C Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 21 January 2010 21 L F H Neer and Pauline Neer (U.S.A.) v United Mexican States, 1926 22 Lauder v Czech Republic, Final Award, IIC 205 (2001), 3rd September 2001, Ad Hoc Tribunal (UNCITRAL) 23 Merrill and Ring Forestry L.P v Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/07/1 88 24 Michael L McKenzie v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL, 2010 25 MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile S.A v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7 26 Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/06/11 27 Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007 28 Power Group L.C and New Turbine, Inc v Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007 29 PSEG Global Inc and others vs Turkey Award, 19 January 2007 30 RECOFI v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL, 2013 31 Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic, Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic, Partial Award, ICGJ 368 (PCA 2006), 17th March 2006, Permanent Court of Arbitration 32 Sekozi v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2016 33 Sempra Energy International vs Argentine Republic Award, September 28, 2007 34 Shin Dong Baig v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/18/2, 2018 35 Siemens AG v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, Award, February 2007 36 Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/2 37 Tokios Tokelės v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18 38 Trinh Vinh Binh and Binh Chau Joint Stock Company v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, UNCITRAL (agreed to settle), 2004 39 Trinh Vinh Binh v The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ICC, 2014 89 40 United Parcel Service of America Inc vs Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/02/1 41 Waste Management, Inc v United Mexican States (“Number 2”), ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, Final Award, 30 April 2004 42 Wena Hotels Ltd vs Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, December 2000 43 Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/04/14, Award Dec 8, 2008 90 APPENDIX: LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS OF VIETNAM A LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES OF VIETNAM No Partners Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belarus BLEU (Belgium- Date of Date of Formulations of signature entry into FET clauses 21/10/1996 force Signed (not Not mapped* 03/06/1996 01/02/1993 05/03/1991 27/03/1995 01/05/2005 in force) 01/06/1997 28/04/1993 11/09/1991 01/10/1996 Signed (not Unqualified FET Not mapped* Not mapped* Unqualified FET Not mapped* 08/07/1992 24/01/1991 in force) 24/11/1994 11/06/1999 Not mapped* Qualified FET 19/09/1996 01/09/2001 16/09/1999 15/05/1998 24/10/2005 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* 02/12/1992 12/10/1995 25/11/1997 23/07/1993 06/09/1997 24/09/2009 21/02/2008 26/05/1992 03/04/1993 13/10/2008 26/08/1994 20/09/2002 in force) 01/09/1993 01/10/1996 09/07/1998 07/08/1994 04/03/2002 11/02/2012 04/06/2009 10/08/1994 19/09/1998 08/12/2011 16/06/1995 10/07/2003 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Qualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Luxembourg 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Economic Union) Bulgaria Cambodia Chile China Cuba Czech Republic Denmark Egypt Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland 91 24 25 India Iran, Islamic 08/03/1997 23/03/2009 01/12/1999 19/03/2011 Unqualified FET Not mapped* 26 27 28 29 Republic of Italy Japan Kazakhstan Korea, Dem 18/05/1990 14/11/2003 15/09/2009 02/05/2002 06/05/1994 19/12/2004 07/04/2014 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Not mapped* 30 31 32 People's Rep of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Lao People's 15/09/2003 23/05/2007 14/01/1996 05/06/2004 16/03/2011 23/06/1996 Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET 33 34 Republic Latvia Lithuania 06/11/1995 27/09/1995 20/02/1996 24/04/2003 Unqualified FET Unqualified FET 35 36 37 Malaysia Mongolia Morocco 21/01/1992 17/04/2000 15/06/2012 09/10/1992 13/12/2001 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Qualified 16/01/2007 15/02/2000 in force) 29/05/2007 Signed (not FET Not mapped* Not mapped* Not mapped* Democratic 38 39 Mozambique Myanmar 40 Namibia 30/05/2003 in force) Signed (not 41 42 43 Netherlands North Macedonia Oman 10/03/1994 15/10/2014 10/01/2011 in force) 01/02/1995 11/01/2016 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET 27/02/1992 31/08/1994 15/09/1994 16/06/1994 29/10/1992 17/12/2009 20/02/2006 22/10/2009 in force) 29/01/1993 24/11/1994 16/08/1995 03/07/1996 25/12/1992 18/08/2011 29/07/2011 Signed (not Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET Not mapped* Qualified FET Not mapped* 08/09/1993 in force) 02/08/1994 Unqualified FET 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Philippines Poland Romania Russian Federation Singapore Slovakia Spain Sri Lanka Sweden 92 53 54 Switzerland Taiwan Province of 03/07/1992 21/04/1993 03/12/1992 23/04/1993 55 China Tajikistan 19/01/1999 Signed (not 56 57 58 59 Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Arab 60 61 62 63 Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela, 30/10/1991 15/01/2014 08/06/1994 16/02/2009 01/08/2002 12/05/2009 28/03/1996 20/11/2008 in force) 07/02/1992 08/12/1994 Signed (not in force) 01/08/2002 09/09/2012 06/03/1998 17/06/2009 Bolivarian Republic of Not mapped*: The full text of the BIT is not available Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET Qualified FET Not mapped* Not mapped* Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Unqualified FET Not mapped* Unqualified FET 93 B LIST OF FORMULATIONS OF FET CLAUSES IN TREATIES WITH INVESTMENT PROVISIONS OF VIETNAM No Name Parties Date of Date of Formulations signature entry into of FET clauses Qualified FET Comprehensive Australia, Br force 08/03/201 30/12/201 and Progressive unei Agreement for Darussalam, Trans-Pacific Canada, Chil Partnership e, Japan, Mal (CPTPP) (2018) aysia, Mexico , New Zealand, Peru ASEAN - Hong , Singapore Hong Kong, 12/11/201 Signed Qualified Kong, China China SAR FET SAR Investment (not in force) Agreement (2017) Trans-Pacific Australia, 04/02/201 Signed Qualified Partnership Brunei FET (2016) Darussalam, Canada, Chil e, Japan, Mal aysia, Mexico , New Zealand, Peru , Singapore, United States of America (not in force) 94 Eurasian Eurasian Economic Union Economic 29/05/201 05/10/201 Qualified FET - Viet Nam FTA Union (2015) Korea, Republic Korea, 05/05/201 20/12/201 Qualified of - Viet Nam Republic of FET India 12/11/201 Signed Qualified FET Free Trade Agreement (2015) ASEAN - India Investment Agreement (2014) ASEAN-China force) China Investment (not in 15/08/200 01/01/201 Qualified FET Agreement ASEAN-Korea Korea, 02/06/200 01/09/200 Qualified Investment Republic of FET Agreement Agreement Australia, Ne 27/02/200 10/01/201 Qualified Establishing the w Zealand FET Trade Area ASEAN Brunei 26/02/200 24/02/201 Qualified Comprehensive Darussalam FET Investment Cambodia Agreement Indonesia (2009) Lao People's ASEANAustralia-New Zealand Free 10 Democratic Republic 95 Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam 11 12 ASEAN-EU EU 07/03/198 01/10/198 Unqualified Cooperation (European FET Agreement EU-Viet Nam Union) EU Expected Qualified Free Trade (European to be FET Agreement Union) signed ... CHAPTER INVESTOR- STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE HOST STATE AND LESSONS FOR VIETNAM GOVERNMENT 50 3.1 THE REFORM OF THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT. .. 2.1.2 FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT AS AN UNQUALIFIED STANDARD 14 2.1.2.1 Stand-alone Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard 14 2.1.2.2 Fair and Equitable Treatment combined with other standards... RESOLUTION OF INVESTOR- STATE DISPUTES ON THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT .61 3.2.1 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF VIETNAM IN THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT CLAIMS 3.2.2 THE INVESTOR S OBLIGATIONS