Evolution of investment doctrine - from NAFTA to US-Peru
NAFTA created the U.S. template for international investment agreements. The Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements updated the model. The new Latin America agreement texts (Colombia, Peru, Panama) introduced a couple of tweaks. Meanwhile, at the urging of state governments in both Australia and the U.S., NAFTA Chapter 11-style 'investor-state' provisions were left out of the US-Australia FTA altogether.
What can these changes tell us about the evolution of investment doctrine? Why was Australia treated differently? Why did Bolivia and Ecuador refuse to sign agreements with the United States?