Enhancing economic co-operation: A regional arbitration centre for asean?

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 390-412

  Koh, Pearlie M C ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650779042     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300064204     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. R. Tasker, A. Schwarz & M. Vatkiotis, “Growing Pains”, Far Eastern Economic review, 28 Jul. 1994, p.2Z
2. P. Imada & S. Naya (Eds), Afta: The Way Ahead (1992), p.12.
3. The ASEAN Declaration, Bangkok, 8 Aug. 1967, in ASEAN Documents Series (1967–1988) 3rd edn, ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta.
4. S. Naya & P. Imada, The Long and Winding Road Ahead for AFTA”, in P. Imada & S. Naya (Eds), Afta: The Way Ahead (1992), p.55.
5. N. Akrasanee, “Issuesin ASEAN Economic Regionalism”, in K. D. Jackson & M. H. Soesastro (Eds), ASEAN Security and Economic Development (1984), p.80.
6. Lim Boon Heng, keynote address at the International Symposium on Regional Economic Co-operation and ASEAN Growth Triangles, Singapore (23 Apr. 1992).
7. H.Soesastro. The ASEAN FreeTrade Area & The Future of Asian Dynamism (1991), p.7.
8. The ASEAN FreeTrade Area & The Future of Asian Dynamism
9. S. Naya & P. Imada, “The Longand Winding Road Ahead for AFTA”, in P. Imada A. S. Naya (Eds), Afta: The Way Ahead, (1992) p.56.
10. T. S. Lee, “The ASEAN Free Trade Area: The Search for a Common Prosperity”, (1994) 8 Asian-Pacific Economic Literature 1, at p.2.
11. S. Naya & P. Imada, “The Long and Winding Road Ahead for AFTA”, in P. Imada & S. Naya (Eds), Afta: The Way Ahead (1992), p.53.
12. Goh Chok Tong, Closing Statement at the fourth ASEAN Summit, Singapore (27 Jan. 1992).
13. Anand Panyarachun, Opening Statement at the fourth ASEAN Summit, Singapore (27 Jan. 1992).
14. “ASEAN Soon to Become a Borderless Entity, Says Badawi”, The Singapore Straits Times, 20 Aug. 1996, p.2.
15. “ASEAN ‘Strong Despite Economic Crisis’ ”, The Singapore Straits Times, 16 Mar. 1999 o 39
16. The Hanoi Declaration, 16 Dec. 1998.
17. The Hanoi Declaration, at 7.
18. L. S. Bartlett, “Full Faith and Credit Comes to the Common Market An Analysis of the Provisions of the Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters” (1975) 24 I.C.L.Q. 44.
19. P. V. Quisumbing. “Problems and Prospects of ASEAN Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Regional Dispute Settlement”, in R. P. Anand & P. V. Quisumbing (Eds), ASEAN Identity, Development and Culture (1981), 308.
20. ASEAN Identity, Development and Culture
21. See generally M. B. Hooker, A Concise Legal History of South-East Asia (1978).
22. P. Thambipillai, “ASEAN Negotiating Styles: Asset or Hindrance”, in ASEAN Negotiations–Two Insights (1985).
23. Paul Jacob, “Many see ASEAN's Expansion as a Positive Development”, The Singapore Straits Times, 21 Nov. 1997, at p.44.
24. R. E. Hudec, Adjudication of International Trade Disputes (1978) at p.29
25. J. H. Jackson, “Governmental Disputes in International Trade Relations: A Proposal in the Context of GATT” (1979) 13 Journal of World Trade Law 1, at pp.3–4.
26. R. Tasker, Schwarz & M. Vatikiotis, “Growing Pains” (28 Jul. 1994), Far Eastern Economic Review, p.23.
27. J. H. Jackson, “Governmental Disputes in International Trade Relations: A Proposal in the Context of GATT” 13 Journal of World Trade Law 1, at p.4.
28. R. E. Hudec, Adjudication of International Trade Disputes (1978), p.28.
29. A. Giardina, “The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States”, in P. Saracevic (Ed.), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (1989), p.214.
30. J. Pelkmans, “Institutional Requirements of ASEAN with Special Reference to AFTA”, in P. Imada &. S. Naya (Eds), After: The Way Ahead (1992), p.129.
31. After: The Way Ahead
32. R. H. Folsom, “ASEAN as A Regional Economic Group–A Comparative Lawyer's Perspective” (1983) 25 Malayan Law Review 211, at p.217.
33. R. H. Folsom, “ASEAN as A Regional Economic Group–A Comparative Lawyer's Perspective” (1983) 25 Malayan Law Review 211, at p.218.
34. J. L. Calamita, “The ‘World Court’: Coping With Political Realism” (1985) 17 Ottawa Law Review 553 at p.565
35. see P. Pescatore, The Law of Integration (1974), pp.49–55 for a definition of “supra-nationality”.
36. R. H. Folsom, “ASEAN as A Regional Economic Group–A Comparative Lawyer's Perspective”, (1983) 25 Malayan Law Review 211, at p.216.
37. L. J. Bouchez, “The Prospects for International Arbitration: Disputes Between States and Private Enterprises”, in A. H. A. Soons (Ed.), International Arbitration: Past and Prospects (1990) p.109.
38. See “International Arbitration Involving States and State-Entity Parties” in J. D. M. Lew (Ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1987) for a consideration of these problems.
39. A. H. Herman, “Disputes Between States and Foreign Companies”, in J. D. M. Lew (Ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1987), p.250.
40. Annual Report of the ASEAN Standing Committee, 1992–1993.
41. H. Smit, “The Future of International Commercial Arbitration: A Single Transnational Institution?” (1986) 25 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 9, at pp.10–12.
42. J. L. Calamita, “The ‘World Court”: Coping with Political Realism” (1985) 17 Ottawa Law Review 553, at p.565.
43. S. Tiwani, “Legal Implications of the ASEAN Free Trade Area” [1994] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 218 at p.233.
44. The Regional Centre for Arbitration at Kuala Lumpur established under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee in 1978: See Arbitration Centre at Kuala Lumpur, (1979) 13 Journal of World Trade Law 89
45. Z. Yatim, “The Regional Centre for Arbitration, Kuala Lumpur”, [1978] Malayan Law Journal boot.
46. E.g. Zurich, Geneva and Paris under the UNCITRAL or ICC Rules or London under the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration.
47. L. Boo, “International Arbitration Act 1994–A Model to Follow” (1994) 7 Asia Business L. Rev. 69 at p.71
48. See also L. Hsu, “The Adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in Singapore” [1994] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 387.
49. H. H. Indorf, Impediments to Regionalism in Southeast Asia–Bilateral Constraints Among ASEAN Member States (1994) p 35.
50. A. Schwarz, “Bigger is Better–ASEAN Looks to Expand its Global Gout” (28 Jul. 1994), Far Eastern Economic Review 24.
51. P. G. Lim, Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (1991), App.1.
52. Mahathir Mohamad, then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Address at the First Conference on International Commercial Arbitration for the Asian and Pacific Region in Kuala Lumpur, Jul. 1979.
53. P. G. Lim, Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (1991) p.3.
54. Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration, pp.1 and 4.
55. See A. Giardina, “The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States”, in P. Sarcevic (Ed.), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (1989) 214, at p.215
56. G. R. Delaume, “ICSID Arbitration” in J. D. M. Lew (Ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1987) 23.
57. For a detailed discussion of the workings of ICSID, see M. Hirsch, The Arbitration Mechanism of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (1993).
58. For a list of the contracting States and other signatories of the Convention (as of 30 Jun. 1997), see International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID 1997 Annual Report, Annex 1.
59. ICSID 1997 Annual Report
60. R. H. Folsom, “ASEAN as A Regional Economic Group–A Comparative Lawyer's Perspective” (1983) 25 Malayan Law Review 211 at p.220.
61. M. C. W. Pinto, “The Prospects for International Arbitration: Inter-State Disputes”, in A. H. A. Soons (Ed.), International Arbitration: Past and Prospects 84 (1990).
62. P. K- Irani, “International Commercial Dispute Resolution through Arbitration–I” (1993) 1 Asia Business L. Rev. 29, at p.10.
63. J. D. M. Lew, The Case for the Publication of Arbitration Awards”, in J. C. Schultz & A. J. van Den Berg (Eds), The Art of Arbitration (1982) 224, at p.321.
64. The Art of Arbitration, p.228.
65. The Art of Arbitration
66. The Art of Arbitration
67. H. Smit, “The Future of International Commercial Arbitration: A Single Transnational Institution?” (1986) 25 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 9, at p.18.
68. F. Knoepfler & P. Schweizer, “Making of Awards and Termination of Proceedings”, in P. Sarcevic (Ed.), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (1989) 167.
69. Essays on International Commercial Arbitration
70. Sec also P. K. Irani, “International Commercial Dispute Resolution Through Arbitration” (1994) 3 Asia Business L. Rev. 38, at p.47.
71. There is some doubt as to the effectiveness of the 1958 New York Convention in Thailand. The Thai military government that promulgated the domestic legislation to give effect to the Convention had apparently acted without a parliament and there may be some issue as to the legality of the relevant decree: J. P. Raissi, “Arbitrating in Thailand” (1992) 16 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 99, at p.116.
72. See P. Sarcevic, “The Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under UNCITRAL Model Law”, in P. Sarcevic (Ed.), Essays on International Commercial Arbitration (1989) 167, at p.177
73. C. M. Schmitthoff, “Finality of Arbitral Awards and Judicial Review” in J. D. M. Lew (Ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1987) 230.
74. It should be pointed out that, whilst it is generally accepted as a principle of the 1958 New York Convention that the enforcing court may not review the merits of the arbitral award- A. J. Van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (1981), p.269, the Convention would not apply if the venue of the arbitration proceedings is in the country in which recognition and enforcement of the award is also sought. This is because the application of the NY Convention is limited to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards and hence would not apply in the country in which, or under the laws of which, the award was made.
75. See Boo, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 n.52 for a consideration of the limited circumstances in which the court has jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award.
76. 2 B.D.I.E.L. (CCH) 529 (13 Dec. 1960)
77. The Treaty was originally by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Costa Rica adhered to the Treaty in 1963 but Honduras dropped out in 1969.
78. Unfortunately, the Central American Common Market essentially collapsed near the end of the 1970s due to revolution, war and other political problems, as well as economic imbalances and disruptions. However, renewed efforts at economic integration were taken by the Central American nations in 1990, although progress on this front has been rather slow: see K. W. Abbot & G. W. Bowman, “Economic Integration in the Americas: A Work in Progress” (1994) 14 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 493, at p.504.
79. Art.26; see also FOLSOM, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, at p.219.
80. C. D. Eklund, “A Primer on the Arbitration of NAFTA Chapter Eleven Investor-State Disputes”, (1994) Journal of International Arbitration 135, at p.153.
81. Schmitthoff, Journal of International Arbitration, p.230.
82. Journal of International Arbitration, p.237.
83. The view has been expressed that forcing compulsory jurisdiction of a supra-national court on sovereign states is politically impractical: see Calamita, Journal of International Arbitration, at p 568.
84. P. Pescator, The Law of Integration (1974), p.84.
85. P. K. Irani, “International Commercial Dispute Resolution Through Arbitration– II” (1994) 3 Asia Business L. Rev. 38.
86. Irani, Asia Business L. Rev., at p.47.
87. See the Indonesian Supreme Court Regulation No.l of 1990,1 Mar. 1990
88. S. Gautama, “Some Legal Aspects of International Commercial Arbitration in Indonesia” (1990) 7 Journal of International Arbitration 93, at 103
89. A. T. Suxowidjojo & L. G. Surowidjojo, “ADR in Asia–Indonesia” (1989) 19 Asia Business L. Rev. 42, at p.44.
90. Irani, Asia Business L. Rev., at p.47.
91. Asia Business L. Rev.
92. Issues of immunity of the State from execution proceedings are distinguished from issues of immunity of the State from jurisdiction, which are raised during recognition and enforcement procedures: see G. Bemini & A. J. Van den Berg, “The Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against a State: The Problem of Immunity From Execution”, in J. D. M. Lew (Ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (1987) 359.
93. Although the view has been expressed that the framers of the Convention contemplated a “circumscribed public policy doctrine” and hence the exception should be narrowly construed: G. Bernini, “The Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards by National Judiciaries: A Trial of the New York Conventions Ambit and Workability”, in Schultsz & Van den Berg (Eds), The Art of Arbitration (1982) 51, p.59.
94. G. S. Shenoy, “The Emergence of a Legal Framework for Economic Policy in ASEAN” (1987) 29 Malayan Law Review 116, at p.129.
95. Pescatore, Malayan Law Review, 78.
96. P. V. Fernandez, “Law and Culture in ASEAN: Towards New Structures for Economic-Cultural Development”, in R. P. Anand & P. V. Quisumbing (Eds), ASEAN Identity, Development and Culture (1981) 328.
97. Reported in Business Malaysia, Sept. 1994 at p 2.
98. The original members were Colombia, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Venezuela became a member in 1973 and Chile withdrew in 1976.
99. Agreement on Andean Subregional Integration, 26 May 1969
100. 8 I.L.M. 910 (1969) (the “Cartegena Accord”).
101. E. B. Kenner, “The Andean Common Market Court of Justice: Its Purpose, Structure and Future” [1978] 2 Journal of International Dispute Resolution 39, at p.43.
102. Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartegena Agreement, 28 May 1979
103. 18 I.L.M. 1203, Venezuela did not ratify the Treaty until four years later.
104. These included the Andean Investment Code (the Common Regime of Treatment of Foreign Capital and of Trademarks, Patents, Licence∗ and Royalties, adopted 31 Dec 1970, 11 I.L.M. 126)
105. the Trade Liberalisation Program, Chaps.IV and V of the Cartegena Accord: Keener, I.L.M., pp.43–44.
106. Keener, I.L.M., pp.43–49.
107. Comment, “Chile's Rejection of the Andean Common Market Regulation of Foreign Investment”, 16 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 138.
108. Keener, Colum. J. Transnat'l L., pp.44–47.