OECD Home › Investment › Publications & Documents
Publications & Documents
The National Treatment instrument stipulates that adhering countries shall accord to foreign-controlled enterprises on their territories treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like situations to domestic enterprises.
This Declaration, first adopted in 1976, constitutes a policy commitment to improve the investment climate, encourage the positive contribution multinational enterprises can make to economic and social progress and minimise and resolve difficulties which may arise from their operations.
The Malaysian government, in partnership with the OECD and ASEAN, has undertaken a review of its investment policies as part of an active programme of investment policy reforms to help revive both foreign and domestic investment.
Jointly organised by the OECD and ESCAP, this conference focused on the role of governments in supporting and facilitating more sustainable and inclusive business practices in the Asia-Pacific region.
To help countries address governance challenges linked to public investment across levels of government, the OECD is working to identify good practices, learn from good examples and identify framework conditions that are critical to make the most of public investment.
This programme generates consensus on investment related policy reform among stakeholders in Southern African countries (governments, private sector, civil society and development partners).
Participants in this multi-stakeholder meeting reviewed and discussed the implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and in the 3Ts supply chain to ensure that companies avoid contributing to conflict through their mineral or metal purchasing decisions and practices.
This Investment Policy Review examines Mozambique's achievements in developing an open and transparent investment regime and its efforts to reduce restrictions on international investment.
English, PDF, 848kb
Many investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims are by shareholders for so-called "reflective loss" incurred as a result of injury to “their” company. This paper (i) compares the wide acceptance of such claims in ISDS with their general prohibition in advanced systems of national corporate law; and (ii) analyses policy issues raised by such claims (e.g., risk of double recovery, high legal costs, injury to creditors, etc.).