A partnership with academia

Building knowledge for trade and development

Vi Digital Library - Text Preview

Investment Policy Monitor

Policy brief by UNCTAD, 2011

Download original document (English)

Seventy-five percent of the observed national policy measures were in the direction of investment liberalization and promotion. In particular many countries from Asia and Europe introduced new investment promotion policies such as simplifying investment procedures, enhancing the protection of foreign investors and easing foreign exchange regulations. In addition, some countries in these regions introduced new promotion programmes for outward foreign direct investment (FDI). Although the recent deepening of the financial and economic crisis in parts of the world has yet to impact national investment policies, signs are visible that major economies are becoming more and more concerned about the impact of inward and outward investment on their economies. Recent fears about possible macroeconomic shocks and a reoccurrence of the recession could increase the risk of new protectionist measures vis-á-vis foreign investors. The number of investment restrictions accumulated over the recent years and the tightening of administrative procedures, point in this direction.



Note: This report can be freely cited provided appropriate acknowledgement is given to UNCTAD
and UNCTAD’s website is mentioned (www.unctad.org/diae).


No. 6
11 October 2011

Key Messages
• In the review period (April-September 2011), 30 countries adopted

40 national policy measures in connection with investment,
and 35 economies concluded 24 new international investment
agreements (IIAs).

• Seventy-five percent of the observed national policy measures
were in the direction of investment liberalization and promotion. In
particular many countries from Asia and Europe introduced new
investment promotion policies such as simplifying investment
procedures, enhancing the protection of foreign investors and
easing foreign exchange regulations. In addition, some countries
in these regions introduced new promotion programmes for
outward foreign direct investment (FDI).

• Although the recent deepening of the financial and economic crisis
in parts of the world has yet to impact national investment policies,
signs are visible that major economies are becoming more and more
concerned about the impact of inward and outward investment
on their economies. Recent fears about possible macroeconomic
shocks and a reoccurrence of the recession could increase the
risk of new protectionist measures vis-á-vis foreign investors. The
number of investment restrictions accumulated over the recent
years and the tightening of administrative procedures, point in this

• Amongst the 24 new international investment agreements (IIAs),
there are five bilateral investment treaties (BITs), seventeen
double taxation treaties (DTTs), and two “other IIAs”. Some
developments (e.g. the IIA concluded by EFTA and the granting of
three negotiating mandates for Europe-wide IIAs) point towards a
further consolidation of the IIA regime at the regional level. At the
European level, the public policy discourse about IIAs intensified.
Moreover, some recent IIAs contain innovative features aimed at
re-balancing the agreements.



1. FDI-specific policy measures1

As regards FDI liberalization, promotion and facilitation measures, Bosnia
and Herzegovina (Republic of Srpska) amended its Foreign Investment
Law to allow foreign investors to own more than 49 percent of the shares
of an enterprise engaged in the production of military equipment under
the condition that they obtain an approval from the relevant government
entity first.2

Brazil approved a law lifting the 49 percent cap on foreign ownership
of cable operators. The law also entitles telecoms operators to offer
combined packages including voice, broadband and TV services.3

India decided to allow FDI in the form of Limited Liability Partnership
firms (LLPs) in sectors or activities where 100 percent foreign ownership
is allowed through the automatic route.4 The country also raised the
foreign ownership cap in the FM (frequency modulation) radio sector to
26 percent from 20 percent.5 The Reserve Bank of India announced that
an Indian company may, under the automatic route, issue equity shares
or preference shares to a person who resides outside of India for payment
purposes, subject to certain conditions, such as entry route, sectoral cap,
pricing guidelines and compliance with the applicable tax laws.6 It also
extended the possibilities for Foreign Institutional Investors (FII) registered
with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Non-Resident
Indians (NRI) to purchase, on repatriation basis, units of domestic Mutual
Funds (MFs). Henceforth, qualified foreign investors may purchase up to $
10 billion in rupee-denominated units of equity schemes of domestic MFs
issued by SEBI registered domestic MFs.7

1 FDI-specific measures specifically address foreign investment. i.e. liberalize, regulate,
protect and/or facilitate/promote foreign investment.

2 Law on Foreign Investment, published in Official Gazette of RS, No.52/11, 24 May

3 Law No. 12485, published in Official Gazette 176, 13 September 2011.
4 Press Release, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 24 May 2011.
5 Policy Guidelines on expansion of FM radio broadcasting services through private

agencies (Phase-Ill), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 25 July 2011.
6 Notification (RBI/2010-11/586), Reserve Bank of India, 30 June 2011.
7 Notification (RBI/2011-12/148), Reserve Bank of India, 9 August 2011.

Figure 1. FDI-specific measures by type of industry,
16 April to 16 September 2011

(Number of Measures)

19 measures,
adopted by 15
countries, were
FDI-specific. 14 of
the measures were
more favourable to
foreign investors,
but there were also
some restrictions or
regulations. 12 FDI-
specific measures were
cross-sectoral, while 7
were of a sector specific
nature (figure 1).











Manufacturing Financial

More favourable measures Less favourable measures


Jordan formally launched its sixth industrial park to attract more FDI.8
Lao People’s Democratic Republic released guidelines to a law allowing
foreign investors to own land. Foreigners who have invested at least
500,000 dollars in Laos will be permitted to purchase a maximum of 800
square metres of land from the state, but are prohibited from purchasing
land from individual Lao citizens or enterprises.9 New Zealand changed
immigration policies for a certain category of foreign investors. The days
which investors have to stay in the country were reduced from 73 to 44
days on an annual basis, and business immigrants need to only meet one
of the two requirements of either having managed a business with five
full-time employees or a business with at least a NZD $1 million annual
turnover instead of both.10

Pakistan introduced the International Arbitration (International Investment
Disputes) Law 2011, aimed at reassuring foreign investors about security
of their investments in the country.11 Poland adopted a “Programme to
support investments of high importance to the Polish economy for 2011-
2020”, aiming at promoting FDI in high technology industries.12

Some countries took measures to promote outward FDI of their
companies through relaxing financial regulations or introducing incentives.

The Reserve Bank of India decided to further liberalize the number
of regulations relating to overseas direct investment, which include i)
performance guarantees issued by the Indian party, ii) restructuring of
the balance sheet of the overseas entity involving write-off of capital
and receivables, iii) disinvestment by the Indian parties of their stake in
an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiaries involving write-
off and iv) issue of guarantee by an Indian party to a direct subsidiary
of joint ventures or wholly-owned subsidiaries under general permission.13
Israel launched a new financial incentive package to encourage medium
and large Israeli companies to establish operations in China and India.14
Luxembourg has partnered with “Plug and Play Tech Center” based in
the United States to help young technology companies of Luxembourg to
access the United States market. This partnership will support start-ups in
the ICT sector, including through intensive entrepreneurship training and
the co-financing of part of the costs incurred in the United States.15

Some countries took measures towards further regulating or restricting
FDI. Belize took over the controlling 70 percent stake of a Canadian
utility company, Fortis, in Belize Electricity Limited (BEL), based on
national interest considerations.16 China released new “Regulations on
the Implementation of the Security Review System for M&As of Domestic
Enterprises by Foreign Investors”. They set out the procedure of security
reviews that China introduced in March 2011.17

8 Press Release, Jordan Industrial Estates Corporation, 30 May 2011.
9 “New Decree paves way for foreign investors to own land in Laos” «, Internet news

media, 13 September 2011. See http://laovoices.com/2011/09/20/new-decree-paves-

10 “Investor Migration Policy changes”, Immigration New Zealand, 17 May 2011.
11 “Arbitration Bill, 2011”, Board of Investment, 28 April 2011.
12 “PLN 727 million from the budget for the support of hi-tech investment projects”, Polish

Information and Foreign Investment Agency, 5 July 2011.
13 “Overseas Direct Investment – Liberalisation/Rationalisation”, Reserve Bank of India,

27 May 2011. For further details, see http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.

14 “Trade Ministry Launches Special Incentive Promoting Trade with Far East”, Invest in
Israel, 1 August 2011.

15 Press Release, Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade, 28 June 2011.
16 “Government Condemns BCCI on Statement on BEL’s Acquisition”, Belize Press Office,

21 June 2011.
17 Announcement No.53/2011, Ministry of Commerce, 25 August 2011. See also

UNCTAD, Investment Policy Monitor No.5 (5 May 2011).

14 measures, adopted by 13
countries, were investment-
specific, with some of them
relating to privatizations. All
these measures aimed at
more favourable investment
conditions – a remarkable
difference to the FDI-specif-
ic measures which show a
more mixed picture as re-
gards the treatment of for-
eign investors (figure 2).


Italy announced the launch of the Fondo Strategico Italiano S.p.A. (FSI).
The Fund has a mandate to acquire stakes – usually minority stakes –
in companies of “national interest”. Based on the Ministerial Decree of
8 May 2011, strategic enterprises are those that operate in defence,
security, infrastructure and public services, transport, communication,
energy, insurance, financial services, research and high-technology.
At the launch, the fund had EUR 4 billion at its disposal.18 The Russian
Federation prohibited foreign legal entities, as well as Russian legal
entities with a foreign share exceeding 50 percent, from becoming
founders of radio stations that broadcast in the area covering more than
half of the Russian regions or the area populated by more than 50 percent
of the country’s population.19 Viet Nam added new restrictions on foreign
investors in the country’s State-owned banks. Foreign investors seeking
to buy 15 percent or more of a Vietnamese State-owned bank must have
total assets of at least $20 billion in the year before they buy a stake.
In addition, strategic, major or founding investors in other banks in Viet
Nam will not be allowed to exceed the strategic 15 percent level in State-
owned banks being privatised.20

2. Investment-specific policy measures21

Angola introduced a new investment regime applicable to national and
foreign investors who invest in developing areas, special economic zones
or free trade zones. It offers several incentives to investors in a wide range
of industries, including agriculture, manufacturing, rail, road, port and
airport infrastructure, telecommunication, energy, health, education and
tourism, provided certain conditions are fulfilled.22

Armenia adopted a law on free economic zones (FEZs). Residents of FEZs
enjoy preferential treatment on corporate profit tax, VAT and property

18 Press release, Department of Treasury, 28 July 2011. See also UNCTAD, Investment
Policy Monitor No.5 (5 May 2011).

19 Federal Law No.142-FZ, 14 June 2011.
20 Circular 10/2011/TT-NHNN, State Bank of Vietnam, 22 April 2011.
21 Investment-specific measures address investment from domestic and foreign sources,

such as measures to protect, facilitate, promote, or regulate or restrict investment.
22 New Private Investment Law, published in the Republic Gazette, 20 May 2011.











Manufacturing Financial

More favourable measures Less favourable measures

Figure 2. Investment-specific measures by type of
industry, 16 April to 16 September 2011

(Number of Measures)


tax and customs duties.23 Indonesia issued a regulation on tax holidays.
Industries that can obtain tax holidays include basic metal, petroleum
refining or organic basic chemicals derived from petroleum and natural
gas, machinery, or industries in the field of renewable resources as well as
telecommunications equipment.24

Italy passed a decree which, inter alia, facilitates investment and provides
a tax credit for R&D. This also includes an improvement in administrative
procedures for companies bidding in public works projects.25 Sierra Leone
opened West Africa’s first tax-free economic zone. Any company in the
zone will benefit from a three-year tax holiday, duty- and tax-exemptions
on imported goods, and guaranteed supplies of electricity and water.26 Sri
Lanka permitted non-residents and foreign institutional investors to invest
in Sri Lankan Unit Trusts, and Sri Lankan resident buyers of Sri Lankan real
estate properties to make payments to non-resident Sri Lankans without
obtaining approval from the Exchange Control.27

In Ukraine, a law will soon enter into force that aims to make it easier for
investors (both foreign and domestic) to obtain documents authorizing
investment projects. The adopted law lays down basic principles of the
one-stop-shop approach to the authorization of investment projects,
the powers and functions of authorizing bodies, and the procedure
for the submission and consideration of investor applications and the
issuance of the necessary documents.28 The United Arab Emirates (Dubai)
amended the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Law to clarify
responsibilities between the different DIFC bodies and their relationship
to parties outside the free economic zone.29

The United States established the “SelectUSA” initiative as the first
coordinated federal initiative to attract foreign investment and to encourage
US investors abroad to relocate their business operations back home.30

Uruguay adopted a new law on public-private partnership (PPP) contracts
related to infrastructure projects.31 Uzbekistan simplified registration
requirements for legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, including a
reduction of registration fees and the minimum required amount of charter
capital for limited liability companies.32

Some countries took measures to privatize State-owned companies.
Brazil auctioned a concession to build and operate an airport in the city of
Natal, which ended a state monopoly.33 Poland sold its 33 percent stake
in Jastrzebska Spolka Weglowa, the European Union’s largest coking
coal producer through an initial public offering on the Warsaw Stock
Exchange.34 The United Arab Emirates (Dubai) allowed the participation of
the private sector in power generation and water desalination.35

23 “President of Armenia signed the law on formation in the country of free economic
zones”, internet media source (http://www.arka.am/rus/economy/2011/06/21/26510.
html), 21 June 2011.

24 Press release, Ministry of Finance, 15 August 2011.
25 Decree Law 70, published in Official Gazette, 13 May 2011.
26 “Sierra Leone economy: Tax-free economic zone opened”, The Economist Intelligence

Unit, 1 June 2011.
27 Press Release, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 17 August 2011.
28 Law of 21 October 2010 No.2623-VI “On preparation and implementation of investment

projects through the ‘single window’ process” (enters into force on 1 January 2012).
29 Law No. (7) of 2011, published in UAE government website, 4 April 2011.
30 “U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke Announces First Federal Effort to Attract and

Win New Business in the United States”, US Department of Commerce, 15 June 2011.
31 Law 18,786, published in the official government’s web site, 19 July 2011.
32 Resolution of the President of Uzbekistan No.1111-1529, 12 May 2011.
33 Press release, National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC), 22 August 2011.
34 Country Report(Poland), The Economist Intelligence Unit, 14 July 2011.
35 “Dubai opens up utilities sector to private firms”, Gulf News, 16 June 2011.


Between 16 April and
16 September 2011, 35
economies concluded 24 new
IIAs. This number includes five
BITs, seventeen DTTs, and two
IIAs other than BITs and DTTs.

3. Measures affecting the general
business climate36

Luxembourg reformed its competition institutions by unifying all
responsibilities into a newly independent Competition Council. This enables
it to act on complaints from the public and initiate its own investigations.37
Qatar adopted a regulatory framework for “captive insurance” in the Qatar
Financial Centre.38

Some countries introduced new taxes or took foreign exchange control

Belarus expanded the list of foreign currencies that exporters must convert
into local roubles.39 Colombia issued a decree establishing a 1 percent
withholding tax on gross revenue from hydrocarbons and mining exports.40
Honduras established a minimum tax of 1 percent of gross income on
natural and legal persons subject to certain conditions.41 The country also
introduced a 5 percent tax rate on exports in the mining sector to finance
environmental protection measures.42 Venezuela introduced a new oil
windfall tax, applicable on both foreign and State-owned oil companies,
which increases on a sliding scale depending on the price of oil.43

4. International investment rulemaking
During the reporting period, five bilateral investment treaties (BITs) were
signed. One of the five BITs was concluded between two transition
economies (Azerbaijan-Montenegro) and one between a developing
country and a transition economy (Colombia-Serbia), thus further
strengthening the South-South dimension of international investment
rule-making. Two BITs were agreements between a developed and a
developing country (Colombia-Japan and Japan-Papua New Guinea);
these are also the two agreements involving a G20 country (Japan). No
European Union (EU) Member State concluded a BIT during the reporting

Regarding the content of the recently concluded BITs, the agreement
between Colombia and Japan offers examples for increasingly refined
and innovative treaty language. Amongst others, the Colombia-Japan
BIT contains balanced protective standards, elaborate procedural
mechanisms especially with respect to investor-State dispute settlement
(ISDS) and carefully crafted policy flexibility clauses (e.g. exceptions). The
agreement can be considered evidence of a growing cross fertilization
between BITs and free trade agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters.44

One of the seventeen newly signed DTTs was an agreement between two
developing economies (India-Taiwan, Province of China). Fourteen of the
seventeen DTTs involved an EU Member State (Czech Republic, Denmark,
France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,

36 Measures relating to the general business climate address general determinants of
business climate attractiveness.

37 Press release, Ministry of Economy and Trade, 30 June 2011.
38 “Captive insurance” is a kind of insurance created or owned by an industrial, commercial

or financial group in order to insure the risk originating from its parent company or
group. Press release, Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority, 29 June 2011.

39 Press release, National Bank of the Republic of Belarus, 26 August 2011.
40 Decree 1505, published in Official Gazette No. 48.065, 10 May 2011.
41 Decree No. 42-2011, published in Official Gazette No. 32,529, 31 May 2011.
42 Decree No. 105-2011, published in Official Gazette No. 32561, 8 July 2011.
43 Decree 8163, published in Official Gazette No. 6022, 18 April 2011.
44 http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/latin/colombia/pdfs/agreement_en.pdf See Colombia-

Japan BIT (2011) Article 30 and Canada-Colombia FTA (2008) Article 824(4).

7 measures relate to
the general business
climate, with 5 of
them introducing new
taxes or enhancing
foreign exchange
control. 2 countries
adopted new measures
relating to competition
and insurance policies;
3 introduced new taxes
and one [1] reinforced
foreign exchange control.


United Kingdom), with three DTTs having been signed between EU
Members (Czech Republic-Denmark, Czech Republic-Poland, Hungary-
United Kingdom). Seven DTTs involve a G20 country (China, France, India,
Turkey, United Kingdom).

Regarding the two IIAs other than BITs and DTTs concluded during the
reporting period, one involves a regional organization. The increasing
engagement by regional organizations in the negotiation of IIAs raises
questions about the extent to which this may lead towards a consolidation
of the IIA regime and help address the challenges arising from today’s
spaghetti bowl of IIAs.45

The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) and Hong Kong, China signed on 21 June 2011
contains an investment chapter applying to commercial presence in all
sectors other than services. It includes provisions on national treatment
and the free transfer of capital, but does not contain other investment
protection clauses such as fair and equitable treatment, or protection
against expropriation. It further includes a general exceptions clause which
incorporates – by reference – Article XIV and paragraph 1 of Article XIV bis
of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) into the investment
chapter.46 The agreement also includes a provision on the right to regulate
allowing the parties to adopt any measure that is in the public interest,
such as measures to meet health, safety or environmental concerns.

On 31 May 2011, Japan and Peru signed an Agreement for an Economic
Partnership (EPA), which incorporates – by reference – the BIT between
Japan and the Republic of Peru, signed on 21 November 2008.

Developments continued at the European level, where the entry into
force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 had shifted responsibilities in the field
of FDI from the Member States to the EU. Following the 6 April 2011
Parliamentary Resolution with specific suggestions on substantive and
procedural clauses of future European IIAs and the 13 April 2011 vote
by the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade on
procedural aspects relating to the future of EU BITs (see IPM No. 5, 5 May
2011), the debate continued in the European Commission, the European
Council, and the European Parliament and in other investment stakeholder
organizations (e.g. business representatives, civil society and academia)
(WIR 2011, box III.5).

On 12 September 2011, EU Member States, through the General Affairs
Council approved three negotiating mandates for new EU-wide investment
agreements with Canada, India and Singapore.47 While the mandates
allegedly indicate that future European BITs will be close to traditional BITs
as they were concluded by EU Member States during the past decades,
some have pointed out that this approach will be complemented with

45 See also the discussions at UNCTAD’s ad hoc Expert Group Meeting on “Consolidation
of International Investment Agreements: Disentangling the Spaghetti Bowl?”, 8 and 9
September 2011.

46 GATS Articles XIV and XVIbis allow WTO members to adopt measures otherwise
inconsistent with the agreement. Article XIV permits measures not arbitrarily or
unjustifiably discriminating between countries where like conditions prevail, under the
condition that they are necessary to a) protect public morals or maintain public order,
b) protect human, animal or plant life or health or c) secure compliance with laws or
regulations not inconsistent with the GATS Agreement. Furthermore the provision
excuses, under certain conditions, tax-related measures inconsistent with d) national
treatment and e) most-favored nation treatment. Article XIVbis on security exceptions
establishes that the GATS does not a) require any Member to disclose any information
considered contrary to its essential security interests or prevent any Member from
taking any action which it b) considers necessary for the protection of its essential
security interests or c) takes in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations
Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.

47 Inside U.S. Trade, Council Negotiating Mandates Reject Qualifications on Investor
Rights, 23 September 2011.


preambular references to corporate social responsibility (CSR), environmental
and social issues. The academic and policy debate also points to the
opportunities the current process offers for incorporating best practices and
making future IIAs more conducive to sustainable development.48

A number of legal and policy questions also arise regarding the inclusion of
ISDS into future EU-wide IIAs, e.g. whether the EU as a whole or individual
Member States have the legal and financial responsibility in case of arbitration;
or how to address the fact that thus far, membership in the International
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is limited to States.49

All of this is paralleled by developments at the national level, where
stakeholders (including civil society, business and parliamentarians) started
voicing their views regarding the costs and benefits and the future orientation
of IIAs, including EU-wide agreements.50 On 8 September 2011, for example,
a number of German parliamentarians requested the country’s government
to clarify a number of questions regarding Germany’s and the European
Union’s FDI policy.51 Similarly, a number of civil society groups expressed
their concerns about the content of the above-mentioned mandates and the
process leading to their adoption by the General Affairs Council.52

* * *

See also UNCTAD’s next Global Investment Trends Monitor,
No. 7, to be released on 18 October 2011.

48 Discussions at the ad hoc UNCTAD Expert Meeting and at the World Trade Institute (WTI)
World Trade Forum “New Directions and Emerging Challenges in International Investment
Law and Policy, 9 and 10 September 2011. See also UNCTAD World Investment Report
(WIR) 2011, chapter III.

49 See ad hoc UNCTAD Expert Group Meeting and the World Trade Forum.
50 UNCTAD World Investment Report (WIR) 2011, chapter III.
51 Deutscher Bundestag, Kleine Anfrage, 8 September 2011, Drucksache 17/6956, available

at: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/069/1706956.pdf
52 Seattle to Brussels Network, European Member States Refuse Necessary Reform, available

at: http://www.s2bnetwork.org/fileadmin/dateien/downloads/S2B_Statement_approval_


Methodological note
This Monitor is the sixth in the series of Investment Policy Monitors
published by UNCTAD secretariat in order to provide policymakers and
the international investment community with up-to-date information about
the latest developments and trends in investment policies at the national
and international level. It covers measures taken in the period from 16
April 2011 to 16 September 2011.

The policy measures mentioned in the Monitor are identified through a
systematic review of government and business intelligence sources.
Measures are verified, to the fullest extent possible, by referencing
government sources. The compilation of measures is not exhaustive.

To further improve the quality of reporting, this Monitor uses a revised
methodology. It distinguishes between three categories of policy
measures: (1) foreign direct investment (FDI)-specific measures, i.e.
measures applying only to foreign investors; (2) investment-specific
measures, i.e. those which are addressed to both domestic and foreign
investors, and (3) measures relating to the general investment climate.
This new categorization is meant to offer a clearer picture about the nature
of individual measures and a better delimitation of the scope of investment


Countries Entry/Establishment







Angola +

Armenia +

Belize -

Belarus -

Bosnia and


Brazil + +

Columbia -

China -

Honduras -,-

India + +, +, + +

Indonesia +

Israel +

Italy - +

Jordan +

Laos +

Luxembourg + +

New Zealand +

Pakistan +

Poland + +

Qatar +

Russia Federation -

Sierra Leone +

Sri Lanka +

Ukraine +

United Arab Emirates + +

Uruguay +


Uzbekistan +

Venezuela -

Vietnam -

“+” means introduction of a more favourable policy measure for investors
“-“ means introduction of a less favourable policy measure for investors

Annex 1. Summary table of national investment
policy measures adopted between
16 April 2011 and 16 September 2011



1 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Japan and Papua New Guinea 26.04.2011

2 Income Tax Treaty between Bahrain and Czech Republic 24.05.2011

3 Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA states and Hong Kong, China 31.05.2011

Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Peru for an Economic


5 Income Tax Treaty between Czech Republic and Hong Kong, China 06.06.2011

6 Income Tax Treaty between Ethiopia and the United Kingdom 09.06.2011

7 Income Tax Treaty between Bahrain and Sri Lanka 24.06.2011

8 Income Tax Treaty between China and United Kingdom 27.06.2011

9 Income Tax Treaty between Isle of Man and Slovenia 27.06.2011

10 Income Tax Treaty between France and Panama 30.06.2011

11 Income Tax Treaty between India and Taiwan, Province of China 12.07.2011

12 Income and Capital Tax Treaty between Armenia and United Kingdom 13.07.2011

13 Income and Capital Tax Treaty between Armenia and Ireland 14.07.2011

14 Income Tax Treaty between Malta and Turkey 14.07.2011

15 Income and Capital Tax between Bahrain and Georgia 18.07.2011

16 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Colombia and Serbia 20.07.2011

17 Income Tax Treaty between Israel and Malta 28.07.2011

18 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Bosnia Herzegovina and San Marino 02.08.2011

Income Tax Treaty between Slovak Republic and Taiwan, Province of


20 Income Tax Treaty between Czech Republic and Poland 13.08.2011

21 Income Tax Treaty between Czech Republic and Denmark 25.08.2011

22 Income Tax Treaty between Hungary and United Kingdom 07.09.2011

23 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Colombia and Japan 12.09.2011

24 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Azerbaijan and Montenegro 16.09.2011

Note: EFTA member States include Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.


Annex 2: Summary table of IIAs signed between
16 April 2011 and 16 September 2011


Annex 3. Summary table of IIAs by type of agreement
and country/economy, between 16 April 2011
and 16 September 2011

Country/Economy BITs DTTs Other IIAs

1 Armenia 2

2 Azerbaijan 1

3 Bahrain 3

4 Bosnia Herzegovina 1

5 China 1

6 Colombia 2

7 Czech Republic 4

8 Denmark 1

9 Ethiopia 1

10 France 1

11 Georgia 1

12 Hong Kong, China 1 1

13 Hungary 1

14 Iceland (EFTA) 1

15 India 1

16 Ireland 1

17 Isle of Man 1

18 Israel 1

19 Japan 2 1

20 Liechtenstein (EFTA) 1

21 Malta 2

22 Montenegro 1

23 Norway (EFTA) 1

24 Panama 1

25 Papua New Guinea 1

26 Peru 1

27 Poland 1

28 San Marino 1

29 Serbia 1

30 Slovak Republic 1

31 Slovenia 1

32 Sri Lanka 1

32 Switzerland (EFTA) 1

33 Taiwan, Province of China 2

34 Turkey 1

35 United Kingdom 4

For the latest investment trends
and policy developments,

please visit the website of the UNCTAD
Investment and Enterprise Division


For further information,
please contact

Mr. James X. Zhan

Investment and Enterprise Division

Tel.: 022 917 57 60
Fax: 022 917 04 98