論文

This article analyses two types of provisions relevant to corruption in Asian international investment agreements (IIAs): clauses requiring (host) states to enforce anti-corruption laws and clauses that protect foreign investments made in accordance with host state laws. It tests whether IIA drafters act rationally regarding such clauses, or instead show status quo or other biases. This is complex first because rational strategies should depend on whether the state is a net exporter of foreign direct investment (FDI) or a net importer, but we explain how determining this status may be difficult. Secondly, rational strategies should depend on the relative extent of corruption in each state and, somewhat relatedly, the extent of inbound FDI claims. Despite such complexities and some instances of more 'bounded' rationality, overall states seem to be drafting both types of clauses rationally - even, and indeed especially, the net-FDI-importing states that tend to be transitioning economies. Adding to that empirical result from a more normative perspective, the article helps identify factors that could or should be considered by future IIA drafters, international bodies, or others tracking the trajectories of IIAs and corruption in Asia and beyond.

This article examines the feasibility of enforcing Singapore money judgments in Cambodia, focusing on the guarantee of reciprocity - an ambiguous yet critical condition. It is ambiguous because Cambodian courts have not yet interpreted it. It is critical because it is perceived as the main obstacle to enforcing foreign judgments. Without a treaty-based mutual enforcement mechanism between Cambodia and Singapore, it is unclear whether a Singapore money judgment could be enforced in Cambodia or if a judgment creditor's application would be dismissed in any event citing lack of reciprocity. Following an analysis of the laws of Cambodia, Singapore, and Japan, the article concludes that there is no legal obstacle before the Cambodian courts to enforce a Singapore money judgment. The flexible interpretation of the guarantee of reciprocity outlined in this article would enhance access to justice, eliminate a trade barrier, and make the investment environment more attractive in Cambodia.