Home   »  TRADE TOPICS  »  Investment  »  Investment texts from NAFTA to ...

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? 

NAFTA Chapter 11
Language in this trinational agreement introduced sweeping property-right protections for foreign investors.
The Chile-Singapore Model
These 2002 agreements set the pattern for all subsequent US-signed Free Trade Agreements.
The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement
U.S. and Australian states pushed back on the inclusion of 'investor-state' provisions
The Andean Agreements
A couple of Latin American governments balked at the investor protections being pushed in bilateral negotiations.

Unless otherwise expressly stated, all original material of whatever nature created by the Forum on Democracy & Trade website is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Privacy Statement | Sitemap