{"id":131584,"date":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=131584"},"modified":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T13:22:46","slug":"malaysia-investment-treaty-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/malaysia-investment-treaty-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Malaysia: Investment Treaty Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-131584","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-investment-treaty-arbitration","jurisdictions-malaysia"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Shearn Delamore &amp; Co<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/07\/ShearnDelamore_Original-2.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Shearn Delamore &amp; Co<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/07\/ShearnDelamore_Original-2.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Investment Treaty Arbitration laws and regulations applicable in Malaysia<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your home state signed and \/ or ratified the ICSID Convention? If so, has the state made any notifications and \/ or designations on signing or ratifying the treaty?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Malaysia became a signatory of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (\u201cICSID Convention\u201d) on 22 October 1965 and the same came into force on 14 October 1966. The ICSID Convention was incorporated into domestic law through the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act 1966 (\u201cICSID Act\u201d) to give the ICSID Convention domestic legal effect.<\/p>\n<p>Malaysia has not made any specific reservations\/declarations\/notifications\/designations under the ICSID Convention, particularly, Article 25(1) thereof, at the time of ratifying the same.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your home state signed and \/ or ratified the New York Convention? If so, has it made any declarations and \/ or reservations on signing or ratifying the treaty?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Malaysia ratified the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (\u201cNew York Convention\u201d) on 05 November 1985. It was declared that the Government of Malaysia will apply the New York Convention on the basis of reciprocity, to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State. Malaysia further declared that it would apply the New York Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under Malaysian law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your home state have a Model BIT? If yes, does the Model BIT adopt or omit any language which restricts or broadens the investor's rights?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, Malaysia does have a Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (\u201cBIT\u201d). The Model BIT contains essential provisions, which include, inter alia, the promotion and protection of investments, and most-favoured nations (MFN).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please list all treaties facilitating investments (e.g. BITs, FTAs, MITs) currently in force that your home state has signed and \/ or ratified. To what extent do such treaties adopt or omit any of the language in your state's Model BIT or otherwise restrict or broaden the investor's rights? In particular: a) Has your state exercised termination rights or indicated any intention to do so? If so, on what basis (e.g. impact of the Achmea decisions, political opposition to the Energy Charter Treaty, or other changes in policy)? b) Do any of the treaties reflect (i) changes in environmental and energy policies, (ii) the advent of emergent technology, (iii) the regulation of investment procured by corruption, and (iv) transparency of investor state proceedings (whether due to the operation of the Mauritius Convention or otherwise). c) Does your jurisdiction publish any official guidelines, notes verbales or diplomatic notes concerning the interpretation of treaty provisions and other issues arising under the treaties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As of today, Malaysia has entered into 70 BITs.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\"><strong>Short Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"91\"><strong>Status<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"146\"><strong>Parties<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"81\"><strong>Date of Signature<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"81\"><strong>Date of Entry into Force<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; San Marino BIT (2012)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">San Marino<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/09\/2012<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/04\/2013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Syrian Arab Republic BIT (2009)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Syrian Arab Republic<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">07\/01\/2009<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/06\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Slovakia BIT (2007)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Slovakia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">12\/07\/2007<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">07\/02\/2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Iran, Islamic Republic of &#8211; Malaysia BIT (2002)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Iran, Islamic Republic of<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">22\/07\/2002<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">05\/08\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Morocco BIT (2002)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Morocco<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/04\/2002<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">23\/04\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Saudi Arabia BIT (2000)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Saudi Arabia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/10\/2000<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">28\/12\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Algeria &#8211; Malaysia BIT (2000)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Algeria<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/01\/2000<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">09\/02\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Bahrain &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1999)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Bahrain<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">15\/06\/1999<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">28\/01\/2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Senegal BIT (1999)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Senegal<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">10\/02\/1999<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">24\/10\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Ethiopia &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1998)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Ethiopia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">22\/10\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">17\/06\/1999<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Burkina Faso &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1998)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Burkina Faso<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">23\/04\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/08\/2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Lebanon &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1998)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Lebanon<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/02\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/02\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Turkey BIT (1998)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Turkey<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/02\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">09\/09\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Yemen BIT (1998)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Yemen<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/02\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">04\/01\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Dem. People&#8217;s Rep. of Korea &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1998)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Dem. People&#8217;s Rep. of Korea<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">04\/02\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">17\/10\/1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1997)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/11\/1997<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/12\/2001<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Cuba &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1997)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Cuba<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/09\/1997<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/10\/1999<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Uzbekistan BIT (1997)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Uzbekistan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">06\/09\/1997<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">20\/01\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Egypt &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1997)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Egypt<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/04\/1997<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/07\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Ghana &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1996)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Ghana<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/11\/1996<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">18\/04\/1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Guinea &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1996)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Guinea<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">07\/11\/1996<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">24\/02\/1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Czech Republic &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1996)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Czech Republic<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">09\/09\/1996<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">03\/12\/1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Romania BIT (1996)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Romania<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/06\/1996<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/05\/1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Kazakhstan &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1996)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Kazakhstan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/05\/1996<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">03\/08\/1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Peru BIT (1995)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Peru<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/10\/1995<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">30\/04\/1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Uruguay BIT (1995)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Uruguay<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">09\/08\/1995<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/04\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Mongolia BIT (1995)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Mongolia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/07\/1995<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/01\/1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Spain BIT (1995)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Spain<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">04\/04\/1995<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/02\/1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Bosnia and Herzegovina &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Bosnia and Herzegovina<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/12\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/05\/1995<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Croatia &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Croatia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/12\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">20\/07\/1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Bangladesh &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Bangladesh<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">12\/10\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/10\/2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Jordan &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Jordan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">02\/10\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/03\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Argentina &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Argentina<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">06\/09\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">20\/03\/1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Namibia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Namibia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">12\/08\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">02\/11\/1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Albania &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Albania<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">24\/01\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/04\/1994<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Poland BIT (1993)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Poland<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">21\/04\/1993<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/03\/1994<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Hungary &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1993)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Hungary<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">19\/02\/1993<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/07\/1995<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1992)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/12\/1992<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/03\/1993<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Chile &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1992)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Chile<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/11\/1992<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">17\/05\/1995<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Vietnam BIT (1992)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">21\/01\/1992<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">02\/12\/1992<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Denmark &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1992)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Denmark<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">06\/01\/1992<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">18\/09\/1992<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; United Arab Emirates BIT (1991)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">United Arab Emirates<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/10\/1991<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">30\/08\/1992<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">China &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1988)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">China<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">21\/11\/1988<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/04\/1990<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Republic of Korea &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1988)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Republic of Korea<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/04\/1988<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">31\/03\/1989<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Italy &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1988)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Italy<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">04\/01\/1988<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/10\/1990<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Kuwait &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1987)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Kuwait<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">21\/11\/1987<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">19\/12\/1989<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Finland &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1985)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Finland<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">15\/04\/1985<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">03\/01\/1988<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Austria &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1985)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Austria<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">12\/04\/1985<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/01\/1987<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Sri Lanka BIT (1982)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Sri Lanka<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">16\/04\/1982<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">31\/10\/1995<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; United Kingdom BIT (1981)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">United Kingdom<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">21\/05\/1981<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">21\/10\/1988<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1979)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union (BLEU)<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">22\/11\/1979<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/02\/1982<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Sweden BIT (1979)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Sweden<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">03\/03\/1979<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">06\/07\/1979<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Switzerland BIT (1978)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Switzerland<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/03\/1978<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/06\/1978<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">France &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1975)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">France<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">24\/04\/1975<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/08\/1976<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Netherlands BIT (1971)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Netherlands<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">15\/06\/1971<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/09\/1972<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Germany &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1960)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Germany<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">22\/12\/1960<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">06\/07\/1963<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Djibouti &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1998)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Djibouti<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">03\/08\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Sudan BIT (1998)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Sudan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/05\/1998<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Botswana &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1997)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Botswana<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">31\/07\/1997<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malawi &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1996)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Malawi<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">05\/09\/1996<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Kyrgyzstan &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1995)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Kyrgyzstan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">20\/07\/1995<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Cambodia &#8211; Malaysia BIT (1994)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Cambodia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">17\/08\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Turkmenistan BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Turkmenistan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">30\/05\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Zimbabwe BIT (1994)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Zimbabwe<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">28\/04\/1994<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"154\">Malaysia &#8211; Papua New Guinea BIT (1992)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"146\">Papua New Guinea<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/10\/1992<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Treaties in Malaysia with investment provisions (\u201c<strong>TIPs<\/strong>\u201d)are: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\"><strong>Short Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"91\"><strong>Status<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"145\"><strong>Parties<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"81\"><strong>Date of Signature<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"81\"><strong>Date of Entry into Force<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Malaysia &#8211; United Arab Emirates CEPA (2025)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">United Arab Emirates<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/01\/2025<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/10\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">IPEF Clean Economy Agreement (2024)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, United States of America, Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">06\/06\/2024<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">11\/10\/2024<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">IPEF Supply Chain Agreement (2023)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore,<\/p>\n<p>Thailand, United States of America, Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/11\/2023<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">24\/02\/2024<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (2020)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">15\/11\/2020<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/01\/2022<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2018)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United Kingdom, Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/03\/2018<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">30\/12\/2018<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; Hong Kong, China SAR Investment Agreement (2017)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Hong Kong, China SAR<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">12\/11\/2017<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">17\/06\/2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; India Investment Agreement (2014)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">India<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">12\/11\/2014<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/07\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Malaysia &#8211; Turkey FTA (2014)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">17\/04\/2014<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/08\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Australia &#8211; Malaysia FTA (2012)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">22\/05\/2012<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/01\/2013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">India &#8211; Malaysia FTA (2011)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">India<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">18\/02\/2011<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/07\/2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Chile &#8211; Malaysia FTA (2010)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Chile<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/11\/2010<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">18\/04\/2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Malaysia &#8211; New Zealand FTA (2009)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">New Zealand<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/10\/2009<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/08\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; China Investment Agreement (2009)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">China<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">15\/08\/2009<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/01\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; Republic of Korea Investment Agreement (2009)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Republic of Korea<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">02\/06\/2009<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/09\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA (2009)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia, New Zealand<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">27\/02\/2009<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">10\/01\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (2009)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/02\/2009<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">24\/02\/2012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; Japan EPA (2008)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Japan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">28\/03\/2008<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/12\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Malaysia &#8211; Pakistan CEPA (2007)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Pakistan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/11\/2007<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/01\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; US TIFA (2006)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">United States of America<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/08\/2006<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">25\/08\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Japan &#8211; Malaysia EPA (2005)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Japan<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/12\/2005<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/07\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; Republic of Korea Framework Agreement (2005)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Republic of Korea<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">13\/12\/2005<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/07\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Malaysia &#8211; US TIFA (2004)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">United States of America<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">10\/05\/2004<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">10\/05\/2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; India Framework Agreement (2003)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">India<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">08\/10\/2003<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/07\/2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; China Framework Agreement (2002)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">China<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">04\/11\/2002<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/07\/2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (1995)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">15\/12\/1995<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">30\/12\/1998<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">OIC Investment Agreement (1981)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Comoros, C\u00f4te d&#8217;Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, State of Palestine, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, T\u00fcrkiye, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">05\/06\/1981<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">1988<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">ASEAN &#8211; EU Cooperation Agreement (1980)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">In force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">07\/03\/1980<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">01\/10\/1980<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Malaysia &#8211; United States ART (2025)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">United States of America<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">26\/10\/2025<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">EFTA &#8211; Malaysia EPA (2025)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">European Free Trade Association<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">23\/06\/2025<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">EU-Malaysia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (2022)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">European Union<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">14\/12\/2022<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"155\">Trans-Pacific Partnership (2016)<\/td>\n<td width=\"91\">Signed but not in force<\/td>\n<td width=\"145\">Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States of America, Vietnam<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">04\/02\/2016<\/td>\n<td width=\"81\">Nil<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Malaysian Model BIT contains the essential provisions for all BITs. Therefore, the provisions therein are included as part of a fundamental structure in all Malaysian BITs mutatis mutandis. However, specific BITs may incorporate other treaty provisions to account for special circumstances between the contracting parties. For example, in the Malaysian-Saudi Arab BIT (2000), there is a specific provision on exchange rates, while other BITs contain a provision that deals with the concurrent application of rules relating to investments (see Article 7 of the Malaysian-Spain BIT).<\/p>\n<p><strong>a. Has your state exercised termination rights or indicated any intention to do so? If so, on what basis (e.g. impact of the <em>Achmea <\/em>decisions, political opposition to the Energy Charter Treaty, or other changes in policy)?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Malaysia has not unilaterally denounced any bilateral investment treaties. Any termination of such treaties has occurred either through their replacement by a new treaty or by termination initiated by the other contracting party.<\/p>\n<p><strong>b. Do any of the treaties reflect (i) changes in environmental and energy policies, (ii) the advent of emergent technology, (iii) the regulation of investment procured by corruption, and (iv) transparency of investor state proceedings (whether due to the operation of the Mauritius Convention or otherwise).<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Malaysian bilateral investment treaties usually contain standard provisions, such as those relating to expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and security exceptions. However, Malaysia also entered into specific multilateral treaties which specifically govern areas like climate change and digital technology:<\/p>\n<p>a. Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement relating to a Clean Economy which came into effect in 2024, focuses on the state parties\u2019 transition to a \u201cclean economy\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>b. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which came into effect in 2022 contains treaty provisions relating to electronic commerce.<\/p>\n<p><strong>c. Does your jurisdiction publish any official guidelines, <em>notes verbales<\/em> or diplomatic notes concerning the interpretation of treaty provisions and other issues arising under the treaties?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>While Malaysia has issued <em>notes verbales<\/em> in relation to issues arising under treaties, the aforesaid issues do not arise from investment treaties but are in fact territorial disputes or disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, among others. To illustrate, Malaysia issued <em>notes verbale <\/em>with respect to the South China Sea dispute which came before the International Court of Justice and the Sulu-Sabah arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>Malaysia has also issued statements to contribute to works of the ILC Drafting Committee and the UN Special Rapporteur. For example, Malaysia provided its views in light of the ILC Drafting Committee\u2019s work on the \u201cIdentification of Customary International Law\u201d (which subsequently became a set of draft conclusions) and further contributed to works <em>vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> the interpretation of treaties.<\/p>\n<p>Although Malaysia does not issue guidelines on treaty interpretation, the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry, published a series of answers to FAQs (frequently asked questions) with respect to free trade agreements in which Malaysia is a party to.\u00a0<a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\"><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your home state have any legislation \/ instrument facilitating direct foreign investment. If so: a) Please list out any formal criteria imposed by such legislation \/ instrument (if any) concerning the admission and divestment of foreign investment; b) Please list out what substantive right(s) and protection(s) foreign investors enjoy under such legislation \/ instrument; c) Please list out what recourse (if any) a foreign investor has against the home state in respect of its rights under such legislation \/ instrument; and d) Does this legislation regulate the use of third-party funding and other non-conventional means of financing.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia does not have any legislation which directly promotes direct foreign investment. Instead, the regulation of foreign direct investments in Malaysia is industry specific. Nevertheless, there are other instruments which may indirectly achieve the same objective, such as:<\/p>\n<p>(a) Investment Guarantee Agreements ;<\/p>\n<p>(b) Double Taxation Agreements ; and<\/p>\n<p>(c) Promotion of Investments Act 1986.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your home state appeared as a respondent in any investment treaty arbitrations? If so, please outline any notable practices adopted by your state in such proceedings (e.g. participation in proceedings, jurisdictional challenges, preliminary applications \/ objections, approach to awards rendered against it, etc.)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. So far, Malaysia appeared in three (3) investment treaty related arbitrations, which are Gruslin v Malaysia (1) (in 1994) [ICSID Case No. ARB\/94\/1], Gruslin v Malaysia (II) (in 1999) [ICSID Case No. ARB\/99\/3], and Malaysia Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia (in 2005) [ICSID Case No. ARB\/05\/10] as respondents. Malaysia participated in those proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Malaysia Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia (in 2005) [ICSID Case No. ARB\/05\/10] concerns a claim arising out of the alleged non-payment of amounts owed to the claimant from the sale of items recovered from the cargo of a British ship that sank in Malaysian waters pursuant to a salvage contract concluded between the investor and the respondent. Malaysia raised a number of jurisdictional objections\/issues in this matter, including whether there is an \u201cinvestment\u201d within the meaning of that term as found in the Malaysia-UK BIT as well as in Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention.<\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal ultimately declared and ordered that the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes had no jurisdiction over the dispute submitted to it in the arbitration and the Tribunal lacked competence to consider the claims made by the Claimant, by way of an award on jurisdiction dated 17.05.2007 (\u201cAward\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>The Claimant then made an application for annulment of the Award. The question that arose in the annulment proceedings was whether the Award should be annulled on the sold ground invoked by the Claimant, namely, that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers by failing to exercise a jurisdiction over the dispute with which it was endowed under the ICSID Convention and the terms of the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Malaysia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (BTI). The Award was ultimately annulled by way of a decision on the application for annulment dated 16.04.2009.<\/p>\n<p>Recently, Malaysia was named as respondent in an ongoing investment treaty related arbitration, which is Eka Tjandranegara v Malaysia [ICSID Case No. ARB\/25\/27]. Eka Tjandranegara is a substantial shareholder of the Indonesian conglomerate known as the Mulia Group. Through a Labuan subsidiary, Mulia International Limited, Eka Tjandranegara participated in a project to develop the \u201cExchange 106\u201d tower in the Tun Razak Exchange precinct in Kuala Lumpur\u2019s central business district. The project subsequently encountered financial difficulties, following which the Malaysian government\u2019s Ministry of Finance became a joint venture party through a wholly owned subsidiary and arranged financial assistance for the continuation of the project. The claims arise out of the Ministry of Finance\u2019s alleged actions to obtain full ownership over the \u201cExchange 106\u201d tower, through a takeover of Mulia Group\u2019s 49% shareholding in the joint venture for the construction and development of the project. The request for arbitration was registered on 10.06.2025, and the Tribunal was constituted on 13.01.2026 in accordance with Article 37(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have any significant court decisions\/arbitral awards been issued in the last year involving your country (as a party or interested party)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There have been no significant investment treaty arbitral awards or related court decisions issued in the past year in which Malaysia acted as a party or interested party.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has jurisdiction been used to seat non-ICSID investment treaty proceedings? If so, please provide details.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia has been involved in several investor-state disputes, but it has yet to serve as the seat for non-ICSID investment treaty proceedings. Investment disputes involving Malaysia have primarily been resolved through ICSID arbitration, as seen in cases like Gruslin v Malaysia (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB\/99\/3) and Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia (ICSID Case No. ARB\/05\/10). However, Malaysia is a party to the New York Convention and the Arbitration Act 2005 (&#8220;AA 2005&#8221;), which provides a framework for international arbitrations. The application of the latter in respect of arbitrations arising under investment treaties will be further discussed in the following paragraphs.<\/p>\n<p>Reference can be drawn from the legislative history of the AA 2005 in respect of its application to arbitrations arising under investment treaties. The predecessor of the AA 2005, the Arbitration Act 1952 (\u201cAA 1952\u201d), contained an express exclusion under Section 34, which stated: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em>(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or in any other written law but subject to subsection (2) in so far as it relates to the enforcement of an award, the provisions of this Act or other written law shall not apply to any arbitration held under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States 1965 or under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules 1976 and the Rules of the Regional Centre for Arbitration at Kuala Lumpur.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>This provision made clear that the AA 1952 did not apply to investment arbitrations, including those conducted under the ICSID Convention. However, the removal of this exclusion in the AA 2005 does not mean that the AA 2005 now applies to ICSID arbitrations. Instead, ICSID arbitrations remain governed exclusively by the ICSID Convention, which operates as a self-contained system, excluding the supervisory role of national courts.<\/p>\n<p>Article 26 of the ICSID Convention expressly states that consent to ICSID arbitration is to the exclusion of any other remedy, meaning that national arbitration laws\u2014including the AA 2005\u2014would not apply. This was confirmed in ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia [2008] EWCA Civ 880; [2009] 1 WLR 665, where the English Court of Appeal held that the UK Arbitration Act 1996 did not apply to ICSID arbitrations, as there had been no legislative extension of its provisions to ICSID disputes. The court would not be able to exercise its powers in ICSID arbitrations in the absence of an Order in Council permitting the application of the UK Arbitration Act 1996. The same reasoning applies to Malaysia, where no legislative mechanism has been enacted to extend the AA 2005 to ICSID proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, non-ICSID investment arbitrations\u2014such as those conducted under the UNCITRAL or ICC Rules\u2014may be subject to national arbitration laws if the seat of arbitration is in Malaysia. This was recognised in Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co [2005] EWCA Civ 1116; [2006] QB 432, where the English courts applied certain provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an UNCITRAL investment treaty arbitration seated in London. However, this principle does not apply to ICSID arbitrations, which remain outside the supervisory reach of national laws.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, while the AA 2005 applies to international commercial arbitrations and potentially to non-ICSID investment arbitrations seated in Malaysia, it does not extend to ICSID arbitrations, which are governed exclusively by the ICSID framework.<\/p>\n<p>It should also be noted that in the case of Masenang Sdn Bhd v Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2021] 6 MLJ 255, a decision of the Malaysian Federal Court, the Federal Court clarified that designating \u201cMalaysia\u201d as the seat of arbitration does not mean the entire country constitutes the seat. The seat must be identified as a specific place within Malaysia (for example, Kuala Lumpur or Kota Kinabalu), either by agreement of the parties or by determination of the tribunal under section 22 of the AA 2005. The courts at that designated location exercise supervisory jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please set out (i) the interim and \/ or preliminary measures available in your jurisdiction in support of investment treaty proceedings, and (ii) the court practice in granting such measures.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Building on the conclusion in Question 7 that the AA 2005 does not apply to ICSID arbitrations but may apply to non-ICSID investment arbitrations depending on the seat, we set out the following: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>(i)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to Section 19(1) of AA 2005, an arbitral tribunal is permitted to grant interim measures at the request of either party to the arbitration agreement. Section 19(2)(a) to (e) of AA 2005 confer power upon the arbitral tribunal to grant the following interim reliefs:<\/p>\n<p>(a) To order a party to maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute;<\/p>\n<p>(b) To take action that would prevent current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself, or to refrain from taking action that is likely to cause such harm or prejudice;<\/p>\n<p>(c) To provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied;<\/p>\n<p>(d) To preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute; or<\/p>\n<p>(e) To provide security for the costs of the dispute<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>(ii)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>An interim measure issued by an arbitral tribunal shall be recognised as binding and, unless otherwise provided by the arbitral tribunal, enforced upon application to the court, irrespective of the country in which it was issued (see: Section 19H of AA 2005).<\/p>\n<p>The High Court has the power to issue interim relief before or during arbitration proceedings, irrespective of whether the seat of arbitration is in Malaysia.<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to Section 11 of AA 2005, the High Court may make the following orders: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>(a) To maintain or restore status quo pending the determination of the dispute;<\/p>\n<p>(b) To take action that would prevent current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process, or to refrain from taking action that is likely to cause such harm or prejudice;<\/p>\n<p>(c) To provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied, whether by way of arrest of property or bail or other security, pursuant to the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court;<\/p>\n<p>(d) To preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute; or<\/p>\n<p>(e) To provide security for the costs of the dispute.<\/p>\n<p>It must be highlighted that the powers of the court to grant interim relief are slightly wider than the powers of an arbitral tribunal. In considering an order to provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied, the High Court has the power to order an arrest of property or bail or other security, pursuant to the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court.<\/p>\n<p>Malaysian courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach and will enforce interim relief granted by an arbitral tribunal unless it contravenes public policy or the principles of natural justice. The case of CTI Group Inc v International Bulk Carriers SpA [2017] 5 MLJ 314 confirms that Malaysian courts respect and enforce arbitral measures where appropriate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please set out any default procedures applicable to appointment of arbitrators and also the Court's practice of invoking such procedures particularly in the context of investment treaty arbitrations seated in your home state.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The AA 2005 provides a default mechanism for the appointment of arbitrators where parties fail to agree: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>a. If the tribunal consists of a sole arbitrator, the Director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (&#8220;AIAC&#8221;) appoints the arbitrator (Section 13(5), AA 2005).<\/p>\n<p>b. If the tribunal consists of three arbitrators, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators select the third. If any appointment fails, the Director of the AIAC steps in (Section 13(6), AA 2005).<\/p>\n<p>c. If the Director of the AIAC fails to act, the Malaysian High Court can intervene and make an appointment (Section 13(7), AA 2005).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In the context of awards issued in non-ICSID investment treaty arbitrations seated in your jurisdiction, please set out (i) the grounds available in your jurisdiction on which such awards can be annulled or set aside, and (ii) the court practice in applying these grounds.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><em><strong>(i)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>An arbitral award made by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement is final, binding and conclusive, and is not appealable based on questions of fact or law. This is because the arbitrator is master of the facts, and the courts should not review the arbitral award on its merits (see the Court of Appeal decision in Asean Bintulu Fertilizer Sdn Bhd v Wekajaya Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2018] 4 MLJ 799).<\/p>\n<p>The limited circumstances in which an arbitral award may be set aside, or its recognition and enforcement may be opposed, are on the following grounds: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>a. A party to the arbitration agreement was under any incapacity;<\/p>\n<p>b. The arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the laws of Malaysia;<\/p>\n<p>c. The party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case;<\/p>\n<p>d. The award deals with a dispute that is not contemplated by or does not fall within the terms of the submission to arbitration;<\/p>\n<p>e. The award contains decisions on matters that are beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;<\/p>\n<p>f. The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties;<\/p>\n<p>g. The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of Malaysia; or<\/p>\n<p>h. The award is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia.<\/p>\n<p>(See sections 37 and 39 of AA 2005)<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>(ii)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>The case of Ken Grouting Sdn Bhd v RKT Nusantara Sdn Bhd and another [2021] 4 MLJ 622 illustrates an instance where an arbitral award was set aside by the court. This case was an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court&#8217;s decision to set aside an arbitral award under section 37(1)(a)(vi) of the AA 2005 (i.e. the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court&#8217;s finding that the arbitrator&#8217;s failure to deliver the arbitral award by the deadline stipulated in the rules of arbitration resulted in the cessation of the arbitrator&#8217;s mandate and\/or jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal highlighted at [128] that once the mandate ceases, then the jurisdiction also ceased.<\/p>\n<p>Further, in the case of Master Mulia Sdn Bhd v Sigur Rus Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 198, the Federal Court at [53] outlined the guiding principles on the exercise of residual discretion when an application for setting aside an award is grounded on breach of natural justice and therefore is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia. The principles are:<\/p>\n<p>a. First, the court must consider which rule of natural justice was breached, how it was breached, and in what way the breach was connected to the making of the award;<\/p>\n<p>b. Second, the court must consider the seriousness of the breach (that is, whether the breach was material to the outcome of the arbitral proceeding;<\/p>\n<p>c. Third, if the breach is relatively immaterial or was not likely to have affected the outcome, discretion will be refused;<\/p>\n<p>d. Fourth, even if the court finds that there is a serious breach, if the fact of the breach would not have any real impact on the result and that the arbitral tribunal would not have reached a different conclusion, the court can refuse to set aside the award;<\/p>\n<p>e. Fifth, where the breach is significant and might have affected the outcome, the award can be set aside;<\/p>\n<p>f. Sixth, in some instances, the significance of the breach may be so great that the setting aside of the award is practically automatic, regardless of the effect on the outcome of the award;<\/p>\n<p>g. Seventh, the court has wide discretion dependent on the nature of the breach and its impact. Therefore, the materiality of the breach and the possible effect on the outcome are relevant factors for consideration by the court; and<\/p>\n<p>h. Eighth, while materiality and causative factors must be established, prejudice is not a prerequisite or requirement to set aside an award for breach of the rules of natural justice.<\/p>\n<p>The above guiding principles are in line with the Federal Court&#8217;s judgment in the case of Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v Iswarabena Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2021] 1 MLJ 1.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award may be refused where the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made (see Section 39 of AA 2005 and Malaysian Bio-XCell Sdn Bhd v. Lebas Technologies Sdn Bhd &amp; Another Appeal [2020] 3 CLJ 534 (Court of Appeal)).<\/p>\n<p>Generally, parties intending to set aside an arbitral award or oppose recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, shall make an application by way of originating summons to the High Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In the context of ICSID awards, please set out: (i) the grounds available in your jurisdiction on which such awards can be challenged and (ii) the court practice in applying these grounds.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act 1966 (Act 392), ICSID awards are binding and enforced as if they were judgments of the High Court of Malaysia. Grounds for challenging an ICSID award are limited to annulment procedures under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, which include: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>(a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted;<br \/>\n(b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers;<\/p>\n<p>(c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal;<\/p>\n<p>(d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or<\/p>\n<p>(e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it is based.<\/p>\n<p>Malaysian courts generally do not interfere with ICSID awards. In Elizabeth Regina Maria Gabriele Von Pezold &amp; Ors v Republic of Zimbabwe [2023] MLJU 2657, the High Court upheld the enforceability of an ICSID award and rejected sovereign immunity as a defense to recognition, consistent with the pro-arbitration stance of Malaysian courts.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court\u2019s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28.03.2025. This ruling marks the Malaysian Court of Appeal\u2019s first recognition of an ICSID Arbitral Award. In affirming the High Court\u2019s decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the statutory interpretation of the ICSID Act 1966, the scope of Malaysia\u2019s obligations under the ICSID Convention, and the effect of treaty provisions on enforcement rights.<\/p>\n<p>(a) The court held that Section 3 of the ICSID Act gives statutory force to the ICSID Convention in Malaysia and confers substantive jurisdiction on the High Court to enforce ICSID awards as if they were judgments or orders of the High Court. The absence of express terms such as \u201crecognition,\u201d \u201cregistration,\u201d or \u201centry as judgment\u201d in Section 3 does not preclude a recognition process, nor does it limit the High Court\u2019s jurisdiction to give effect to ICSID awards.<\/p>\n<p>(b) Section 3 must also be read together with Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, which forms part of Malaysian law through the Schedule to the ICSID Act. The legislative scheme reflects a mandatory enforcement framework consistent with Malaysia\u2019s treaty obligations under the ICSID Convention. In addition, pursuant to Article 69 of the ICSID Convention, Malaysia is required to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to the Convention, which it has done through the enactment of the ICSID Act.<\/p>\n<p>(c) The German and Swiss BITs do not restrict enforcement of the ICSID awards to Zimbabwe only. Instead, by virtue of the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clauses in those treaties, Swiss and German investors are entitled to the same enforcement rights afforded to Dutch investors under the Netherlands\u2013Zimbabwe BIT. Accordingly, they may seek recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards in any contracting State to the ICSID Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent can sovereign immunity (from suit and\/or execution) be invoked in your jurisdiction in the context of enforcement of investment treaty awards.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Malaysian High Court held that sovereign immunity applies \u201cwhen concrete measures of execution are taken to enforce the award\u2019s pecuniary obligation\u201d . The Court of Appeal further clarified that ICSID awards are subject to a two-stage process.<\/p>\n<p>(a) The first stage concerns recognition and enforcement under Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, which obliges contracting States to recognise ICSID awards as binding and enforce them accordingly. At this stage, refusal to recognise an award is not permitted, including on grounds of sovereign immunity, and immunity from suit does not apply.<\/p>\n<p>(b) The second stage concerns execution under Article 54(3), which is governed by the domestic laws of the State where execution is sought. At this stage, principles of sovereign immunity relating to execution may still apply. Thus, while contracting States waive immunity from jurisdiction for purposes of recognition and enforcement, they do not necessarily waive immunity from execution.<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act 2024 , a few provisions may be relevant to the enforcement of investment treaty awards, i.e. waiver of immunity in arbitration agreement , restriction of immunity and restrictions on enforcement against state assets .<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please outline the grounds on which recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards can be resisted under any relevant legislation or case law. Please also set out any notable examples of how such grounds have been applied in practice.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The ICSID Convention has been ratified in Malaysia and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act 1966 was enacted, where Section 3 of the Act stipulates that \u201can award made by an arbitrator under the Convention shall be binding and may be enforced in the same manner as if it is a decree judgment or order of the Court\u201d .<\/p>\n<p>The only reported case in relation to ICSID arbitration in Malaysia is Elisabeth Regina Maria Gabriele Von Pezold &amp; Ors v Republic of Zimbabwe [2023] MLJU 2657. In this case, the Court allowed the Plaintiff\u2019s application to enforce the ICSID award and dismissed the Defendant\u2019s application to set aside the award .<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please outline the practice in your jurisdiction, as requested in the above question, but in relation to non-ICSID investment treaty awards.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In relation to non-ICSID arbitral awards, the Arbitration Act 2005 applies. Pursuant to the Act, arbitral awards are allowed to be enforced unless they violate Section 39 of the Act (which includes public policy) .<\/p>\n<p>The Malaysian Federal Court described the enforcement proceedings of an arbitral award as a \u201ctwo-stage process\u201d, where an application to set aside the arbitral award \u201cunder s 38 upon any one or more of the grounds set out in s 39\u201d . The Court of Appeal illustrated the purposes of the \u201ctwo-stage process\u201d is to \u201csimplify the application for recognition or enforcement of an award and the process of dealing with exercise of discretion to refuse that application\u201d .<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent does your jurisdiction permit awards against states to be enforced against state-owned assets or the assets of state-owned or state-linked entities?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In relation to the assets of a State, Part III of the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States Act 2024 contains protections for state-owned assets, restricting pre-trial actions , enforcement and execution against foreign state assets unless consent given or commercial use exceptions apply on enforcement against foreign.<\/p>\n<p>In relation to the assets of state-owned or state-linked entities, it is to be noted that the state -owned or state-linked entities are usually incorporated as separate legal entities, meaning they are distinct from the state itself. The Malaysian Court of Appeal has ruled on this principle and determined that \u201cthe property owned by a company belongs to it and not to its shareholders\u201d , where \u201cthe principle that shareholders have no legal interest in the assets of the company, is trite\u201d .<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please highlight any recent trends, legal, political or otherwise, that might affect your jurisdiction's use of arbitration generally or ISDS specifically.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>(a) Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 : The amendment of Section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 intended to harmonize the provision with the UNCITRAL Model Law, in which \u201cthe award made in respect of the arbitration shall be recognized as binding at the first instance without requiring an application to be made to the High Court for its recognition\u201d . This amendment would strengthen the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the effect of its awards.<\/p>\n<p>(b) Recognition of ICSID award: As mentioned above, the Malaysian High Court recently in 2023 recognised the enforcement of ICSID award in Malaysia (and later affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2025) . The decision in this case would now become a precedent in Malaysia for the enforcement of ICSID awards in the State.<\/p>\n<p>(c) Stay of Domestic Court Proceedings Pending ISDS: A high-value shareholder and treaty-related dispute has arisen in connection with the development of the \u201cExchange 106\u201d tower. MKD Signature Sdn Bhd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Malaysian government\u2019s Ministry of Finance, commenced proceedings in the Malaysian High Court to compel a Labuan subsidiary of the Mulia Group, Mulia International Limited, to transfer its shares in the joint venture company that develop the \u201cExchange 106\u201d tower under a call option contract between the parties.<\/p>\n<p>The Defendant has applied to stay Malaysian court proceedings on the basis that the dispute constitutes an investor\u2013State claim under the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement 2009 (ACIA). The Defendant also that the underlying dispute should be referred to ICSID arbitration. ICSID proceedings have been initiated (Eka Tjandranegara v Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB\/25\/27), and the application to stay the Malaysian court proceedings is presently part-heard before the Malaysian High Court.<\/p>\n<p>The outcome of this case is significant because it raises questions concerning the interaction between treaty-based dispute resolution mechanisms and domestic court proceedings, including: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>(i) Whether domestic proceedings should be stayed in favour of treaty-based arbitration;<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Whether a treaty dispute resolution provision gives rise to an arbitration agreement in the absence of an express arbitration clause between the litigating parties; and<\/p>\n<p>(iii) The interaction between public international law obligations and domestic corporate law rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please highlight any other investment treaty related developments in your jurisdiction to the extent not covered above (for e.g., impact of the Achmea decisions, decisions concerning treaty interpretation, appointment of and challenges to arbitrators, immunity of arbitrators, third-party funding and other non-conventional means of financing such proceedings).<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Introduction of third party funding: Pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 which came into force on 01.01.2026, a new chapter (Chapter II of Part III) has been introduced into the Arbitration Act 2005 to provide a statutory framework for third party funding. This amendment allows third-party funding in arbitration and related court proceedings, which brings Malaysia in line with other arbitration-friendly jurisdictions and could lead to an increase in ISDS or arbitration in general. In addition, the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister Department has implementation the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding 2026, which also came into force on 01.01.2026. The Code establishes regulatory standards and oversight in relation to third party funding agreements made on or after 01.01.2026.<\/p>\n<p>Arbitrator immunity: Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 2005 grants arbitrators\u2019 immunity from liability for acts performed in their capacity, except in cases of bad faith .<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">8691<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/131584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}