It has been six years since the Santiago Principles (the Principles) were established by the International Working Group on Sovereign Wealth Funds. The Principles are non-binding and represent an effort to promote self-governance among SWFs, given their unique nature and relationship with governments. Questions raised regarding the Principles include their effectiveness in promoting their objectives, compliance and what institutional mechanisms may best increase the chances of compliance. What is perceived as the Principles’ disadvantage – the fact that they are non-binding principles – might also be argued to be their strength. This chapter examines the activities and debates that have occurred since establishment of the Principles, the implications and the way forward. It discusses the formation of the Principles and the standing body, the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds. The diversity of the members of the Forum and associated challenges are also addressed in assessing the Principles’ effectiveness. The chapter also includes a discussion of the surveys carried out by the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds in 2011 and 2013, the inherent language of the Principles, institutional aspects of the Forum, and suggestions for further work.
This chapter examines topical issues in investment law and agreements, reflecting a number of themes developed in other chapters, while providing an Asian context. Given the increasing number of treaties and national legislative and judicial actions in Asia which have an impact on international investment law, the region provides rich research material. Examples of regional developments include State actions taken to review, renegotiate or terminate investment treaties, and the growing number of investment disputes involving either an Asian State, an Asian investor, or both. Investment arbitration-related decisions are emerging in Asian courts and these also present important subject matter for analysis, both procedurally as well as substantively. Finally, significant investment dispute resolution reform actions, such as those proposed by the EU, can have important implications for Asian states with which the EU is negotiating trade and investment agreements.