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.