This paper analyzes the outstanding differences between the state-investor dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and that in the Investment Protection Agreement between Vietnam - the European Union (EVIPA), and figures out the reasons for these differences. From these points, the paper proposes solutions to effectively implement Vietnam's ISDS commitments
(1). Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID rules, ICSID p. 37, https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/ WP_3_VOLUME_1_ENGLISH.pdf, truy cập 08/5/2020.
(2). Chapter 2: Yêu cầu về đạo luật thương mại và đầu tư nước ngoài (Bảo vệ lợi ích công cộng) 2014, Báo cáo của Uỷ ban ngoại giao, quốc phòng và thương mại Nghị viện Australia, Đoạn 2.6, https://www.aph.gov. au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Trade_and_Foreign_Investment_Protecting_the_Public_Interest_Bill_2014/Report/c02., truy cập 20/3/2020.
(3). Christopher F. Dugan et al, Investor-State Arbitration, Oxford University Press, New York, 2011, p. 84.
(4). Điều 9.22, Chương 9 CPTPP (Lựa chọn trọng tài). Xem toàn văn Hiệp định tại: http://cptpp.moit.gov.vn /?page=overview&category_id=368aeb47-ffbe-4324-bc57-2ecabf61b78a, truy cập 08/5/2020.
(5). Eric De Brabandere, Investment treaty arbitration as public international law: Procedural aspects and implication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, p. 80 - 6.
(6). Xem thêm: Investment Policy Hub, Arbitrators and annulment committee members, https://investment policy. unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement, truy cập 08/5/2020.
(7). Eric De Brabandere, sđd, p. 80 - 6.