Investment Laws of ASEAN Countries: A comparative review

The report finds that there is no single 'good practice' model for investment laws in ASEAN, as their functions vary significantly by country—ranging from managing entry approvals to granting incentives. Some members, such as Singapore, have no specific investment law, relying instead on general and sector-specific legislation. A key distinction is made between national investment laws and investment treaties; the report notes that ASEAN investment laws generally lack the vague, broad investor rights (such as 'fair and equitable treatment') and the general consent to investor-state arbitration typically found in treaties. The author argues that investment laws cannot be evaluated in isolation and must be understood as part of a broader national regulatory regime.

• There is no uniform 'good practice' approach to investment laws in ASEAN, as some countries lack a dedicated investment law entirely. Singapore, for instance, does not have one and instead governs foreign investment through laws of general application and sector-specific legislation.
• Investment laws in ASEAN serve different primary functions depending on the country. For example, Malaysia's Promotion of Investment Act focuses exclusively on incentives, while Thailand's Foreign Business Act focuses on restrictions and conditions for foreign investment.
• Investment laws are only one component of a larger national regulatory framework and cannot be analyzed in isolation. Their effectiveness depends on how they interact with other laws, such as whether an investment law's approval process overrides the need for other regulatory permits like construction permits.
• ASEAN investment laws differ fundamentally from investment treaties, as they generally do not include the vague investor rights common in treaties. Specifically, no ASEAN investment law contains an 'umbrella clause' or a vaguely drafted guarantee of 'fair and equitable treatment' (FET), with the exception of Myanmar's 2016 law, which defines FET much more narrowly than treaty tribunals do.
• No ASEAN country provides general consent to investor-state arbitration within its national investment laws. While some countries allow such arbitration, it typically requires a specific agreement or contract between the individual investor and the host government.
• In Myanmar, the 2016 Investment Law establishes that rights and privileges granted under the law override other Myanmar laws of general application, such as the Transfer of Immovable Property Restriction Law (1987) regarding foreign lease limits.

APA

Bonnitcha, J. (2017). Investment Laws of ASEAN Countries: A comparative review. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-laws-asean-countries.pdf

Chicago

Bonnitcha, Jonathan. Investment Laws of ASEAN Countries: A comparative review. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2017. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-laws-asean-countries.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Bonnitcha |first1=Jonathan |title=Investment Laws of ASEAN Countries: A comparative review |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=December 2017 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-laws-asean-countries.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{bonnitcha2017investment, author = {Bonnitcha, Jonathan}, title = {{Investment Laws of ASEAN Countries: A comparative review}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2017}, month = dec, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-laws-asean-countries.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }