AVERTISSEMENT Ce document est le fruit d’un long travail approuvé par le jury de soutenance et mis à disposition de l’ensemble de la communauté universitaire élargie. Il est soumis à la propriété intellectuelle de l’auteur : ceci implique une obligation de citation et de référencement lors de l’utilisation de ce document. D’autre part, toute contrefaçon, plagiat, reproduction illicite de ce travail expose à des poursuites pénales. Contact : [email protected] LIENS Code la Propriété Intellectuelle – Articles L. 122-4 et L. 335-1 à L. 335-10 Loi n°92-597 du 1er juillet 1992, publiée au Journal Officiel du 2 juillet 1992 http://www.cfcopies.com/V2/leg/leg-droi.php http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/infos-pratiques/droits/protection.htm THÈSE En vue de l’obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITE DE TOULOUSE Délivré par l’Université Toulouse 1 Capitole Cotutelle avec l’Universidad Zaragoza Discipline : droit privé et sciences criminelles Présentée et soutenue par Pattawee SOOKHAKICH le mardi 23 mai 2017 à 9h00 Titre : La mise en œuvre du mécanisme de règlement des différends commerciaux de l'ASEAN pour la préparation de la Communauté économique de l'ASEAN (AEC) Écoledoctorale : Sciences Juridiques et Politiques Unité de recherche: Institut Maurice Hauriou (IMH ‐ EA 4657) Directeurs de Thèse : M. Grégory KALFLÈCHE (Professeur à l’Université Toulouse 1 Capitole) Mme. Katia FACH GÓMEZ (Professeur à l’Universidad de Zaragoza) JURY : Rapporteurs Mme. Esther LÓPEZ BARRERO (Professeur à l’Universidad a distancia de Madrid) Mme. Élise RALSER (Professeur à l’Université de La Réunion) Suffragants Mme. Catharine TITI (Chargée de recherche CNRS à l'Université de Bourgogne) Mme. Florence CROUZATIER‐DURAND (Maître de conférences HDR à l’Université Toulouse 1 Capitole) « L’université n’entend ni approuver ni désapprouver les opinions particulières du candidat. » II Abstract The aim of this thesis is to understand the ASEAN Protocol for the settlement of economic disputes, the so‐called 2004 Protocol on an Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (EDSM) and the ASEAN Charter, which are all related to dispute instruments for the governments of all ASEAN member countries. The ASEAN Charter is also included in the analysis of this thesis, since this has failed to enhance the ASEAN’s ability to achieve further economic integration and this failure appears to have blocked the ASEAN from moving toward deeper integration. An important question that has been raised since the adoption of the 2004 Protocol (EDSM) is why no ASEAN member state has ever brought a single dispute to be resolved through the EDSM, which means that the EDSM has never been tested. However, the ASEAN member states hesitate to make use of it because it has a number of weaknesses that may eventually undermine its efficiency. Based on sample cases, ASEAN member states prefer to use the World Trade Organisation (WTO) mechanism to settle their trade disputes. It is important to note that the ASEAN dispute settlement process is very similar to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. This similarly affects the ASEAN mechanism in other fora organisations, which ASEAN member states prefer to choose to settle disputes apart from its own mechanism. Moreover, it has also led to increasing criticism of the ASEAN Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) from both a procedural and substantial perspective; furthermore, its efficiency is still in question. The diverse political and legal system, the problem of the ‘ASEAN Way’ and the procedure of the ASEAN free trade agreement dispute settlement itself are also perceived as barriers to the regional integration of the ASEAN Community. In addition, this thesis illustrates the establishment and evolution of a variety of different dispute resolution regimes applied to trade disputes based on a discussion of how a multilateral and regional trade organisations develop a dispute resolution mechanism. A brief overview of the relevant procedures and structures will be provided III before making a more detailed examination of the disputes that may arise between state parties. Furthermore, the functioning of these dispute resolution mechanisms will be explained in this thesis, especially those involving foreign investment and some that relate to disputes among state parties over the application and interpretation of free trade agreements. The General Agreement of Trade Tariffs (GATT) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) will provide an example of multilateral institutionalised trading systems. The regional perspective will be also addressed in this thesis, which will focus on three major regional organisations: the European Union (EU), the Southern Common Market or (Mercado Comun del Sur or MERCOSUR) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It should be noted that MERCOSUR has been included as an example in this thesis of an effective organisation that has resolved trade disputes. This is because MERCOSUR is similar to ASEAN in the sense that member states are developing countries. An analysis of the different background elements and a comparative perspective of the five examples of dispute settlement mechanisms of the GATT, the WTO, the EU, NAFTA and MECOSUR may be beneficial for the ASEAN. The design of trade dispute settlement regimes can provide a reference for many comparative examples to encourage trade liberalisation and bilateral trading concepts that could be functionally implemented in the context of the ASEAN. A study of these mechanisms will be useful for the development of an ASEAN trade dispute settlement mechanism. The failure of ASEAN member states to resort to this mechanism can be attributed to many factors. Recommendations and basic suggestions for the future direction of the ASEAN trade dispute settlement model, particularly with regard to the ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism pillar, and a clear direction for efforts to reform the ASEAN DSM are addressed in the context of the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). Interestingly, not a single dispute has been handled by this mechanism to date and it is uncertain whether or when it will be used in the future. It will be difficult for the AEC to be effective in future if the problem of non‐use of DSM cannot be resolved. IV Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................. III Table of contents ................................................................................................................ V Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... XIII List of figures, flowcharts and tables ............................................................................... XV Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. XVII Table of Treaties and Declarations .................................................................................. XIX ASEAN Timelines ............................................................................................................ XXIII Introduction. Preamble of introduction and scope of study .............................................. 1 CHAPTER I. OVERVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ASEAN ...... 5 Section 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 5 Section 1.2 Formation of the ASEAN ............................................................................. 7 Section 1.3. Evolution of the ASEAN ............................................................................ 10 Section 1.4 Characteristics of the ASEAN .................................................................... 14 1.4.1 Structure of the ASEAN ...................................................................................... 16 A) The ASEAN Summit .......................................................................................... 16 B) The ASEAN Secretariat .................................................................................... 21 C) The ASEAN National Secretariat ....................................................................... 25 1.4.2 Decision‐making structure ................................................................................ 26 a) The musyawarah and mufakat ........................................................................ 26 b) The ASEAN Way: Consensus in the ASEAN ...................................................... 28 1.4.3 Legal Personality of the ASEAN .......................................................................... 37 1.4.4 Sovereign Equality .............................................................................................. 41 Section 1.5 How does the ASEAN work to settle disputes? .......................................... 42 Section 1.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 47 CHAPTER II. THE ASEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ........................................................ 49 Section 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 49 Section 2.2 Overview of ASEAN Economies ................................................................. 52 V 2.2.1 The Formation period of the ASEAN Economies from 1967‐1976 .................... 57 2.2.2 Intra‐ASEAN Economic Cooperation from 1976 to 2003