Investment treaties are said to improve the rule of law in the states which enter into them. Fearing claims, governments will internalise international investment obligations into their decision-making processes, resulting in positive spill-over effects on the rule of law. Such arguments have never been backed by empirical research. This book presents an analytical framework for thinking about the internalisation of international commitments in governmental decision making that takes account of the complexities of governance. In so doing, it provides a typology of processes whereby international treaty obligations may be internalised by governments and identifies factors which may affect whether and to what extent international commitments are internalised in governmental decision making. This framework serves as the background for the main body of the book in which empirical case studies address whether and how a select group of governments in Asia internalise international investment treaty obligations in their decision-making.

Investment treaties are said to improve the rule of law in the states which enter into them. Fearing claims, governments will internalise international investment obligations into their decision-making processes, resulting in positive spill-over effects on the rule of law. Such arguments have never been backed by empirical research. This book presents an analytical framework for thinking about the internalisation of international commitments in governmental decision making that takes account of the complexities of governance. In so doing, it provides a typology of processes whereby international treaty obligations may be internalised by governments and identifies factors which may affect whether and to what extent international commitments are internalised in governmental decision making. This framework serves as the background for the main body of the book in which empirical case studies address whether and how a select group of governments in Asia internalise international investment treaty obligations in their decision-making.

Investment treaties are said to improve the rule of law in the states which enter into them. Fearing claims, governments will internalise international investment obligations into their decision-making processes, resulting in positive spill-over effects on the rule of law. Such arguments have never been backed by empirical research. This book presents an analytical framework for thinking about the internalisation of international commitments in governmental decision making that takes account of the complexities of governance. In so doing, it provides a typology of processes whereby international treaty obligations may be internalised by governments and identifies factors which may affect whether and to what extent international commitments are internalised in governmental decision making. This framework serves as the background for the main body of the book in which empirical case studies address whether and how a select group of governments in Asia internalise international investment treaty obligations in their decision-making.