{
   "share": {
      "comment_count": 0,
      "share_count": 11
   },
   "og_object": {
      "id": "1307070709321346",
      "description": "Author: Luke Nottage, University of Sydney Public debate over how best to manage the interests of foreign investors and host states has resurfaced in Australia. Most of Australia\u2019s free trade agreements (FTAs), like those of many other Asia-Pacific economies, follow a US approach to drafting substantive provisions that liberalise and protect cross-border investment. This includes increasingly detailed provisions for investor\u2013state dispute settlement (ISDS), whereby investors and host states appoint arbitrators on a case-by-case basis.  Yet there may be scope to transition towards the contemporary European Union approach to investment treaty drafting. The EU will probably keep negotiating FTAs on that basis, despite the United Kingdom voting for \u2018Brexit\u2019.\u00a0 The approach still provides an inspiration for those seeking a compromise for concluding investment agreements. The Australian government has commenced a joint review of the 2014 FTA with Japan. That omitted ISDS but contained a",
      "title": "Towards a European model for investor\u2013state disputes? | East Asia Forum",
      "type": "website",
      "updated_time": "2016-09-04T13:44:57+0000"
   },
   "id": "http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/07/01/towards-a-european-model-for-investor-state-disputes/"
}