在東協首件投資仲裁案件中，外國投資人指控地主國〔緬甸〕違反1987年東協投資協定之相關規定。本案之焦點在於仲裁庭是否具有管轄權之問題，而此一問題主要涉及1987年東協投資協定第I條及第II條之解釋及適用。仲裁庭指出1987年東協投資協定第II條明文規定，投資應取得地主國之書面許可與登記方屬該協定之涵蓋範園。然而本案申請人於該協定對緬甸生效後，並未根據第II(3)條之規定提出申請。因此仲裁庭判定本案申請人所為之投資未符合1987年東協投資協定第II(3)條之要求。此外在本案中1987年東協投資協定所建立之投資保護機制，與1998年架構協定所提供之進一步投資保護機制，兩者間之關係應如何界定，亦引發爭議。關於這一點，仲裁庭認為兩項協定顯然各別獨立適用，因此1998年架構協定第12(1)條不應被解釋為重新對東協投資適用1987年東協投資協定之規定，包括該協定第X條有關爭端解決之條款。故仲裁庭最終裁定其對本案無管轄權。本文擬就該案之相關問題予以評析。

In the first ASEAN investment arbitral award, the Claimant alleged a breach by the Respondent, the State of Myanmar, of substantive provisions of the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement. The core jurisdictional issue concerned the interpretation of Articles I and II of the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement and their application to the facts of the dispute. The Tribunal noted that under Article II of the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement, there is an express requirement of approval in writing and registration of a foreign investment if it is to be covered by the Agreement; however, no formal approval of the investment under Article II(3) was requested by the Claimant after the entry into force of the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement for Myanmar. The Tribunal accordingly concluded that the Claimant's investment did not qualify as such under Article II(3) of the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement. In the Tribunal's view, the system of investment protection established by the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement and enhanced by the parallel provisions of the 1998 Framework Agreement raised difficult questions. The Tribunal found that the two Agreements are clearly intended to operate separately. On this basis, Article 12(1) of the 1998 Framework Agreement should not be interpreted as applying de novo the provisions of the 1987 ASEAN Investment Agreement, including Article X, to ASEAN investments. The Tribunal accordingly held that it had no jurisdiction in respect of the present claim. This article aims at examining the relevant issues arising out of this case.