Abstract
International investment agreements (hereinafter “IIAs”) protect foreign investors and its investment from host states’ inappropriate intervention, and provide foreign investors both substantial and procedural protection. The investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism (hereinafter “ISDS”) means foreign investors can settle investment disputes with host state relies on arbitration rather than domestic courts. ISDS mechanisms are very common in IIAs. Because the foreign investors may have concerns to domestic courts and the investment disputes are highly technical, they prefer to settle the disputes through international investment arbitration. However, ISDS mechanisms raise several concerns and critics that ISDS mechanism unduly, improperly affect and constrain the regulatory space of host states, especially when the disputes are related to public health, human right or financial regulation. In 2017, the corporate control fight of Chang Hwa Bank, between Taishin Financial Holdings and Ministry of Finance, is sub judice at Supreme Court. Originally, it seems like a purely domestic disputes. However, Surfeit Harvest Investment Holding, a Singaporean investor, filed this case to international investment arbitration under the Agreement between Singapore and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Partnership (ASTEP), then it aroused lots of concerns on procedural issues of international investment arbitration. This article will focus on the procedural issues of international investment arbitration and discuss the influence of regulatory space of host states, and relationship between domestic courts and international investment arbitration tribunals. Also, this article will review and comment on the judgments made by courts in the first and second instance. In the end, this article will analyze and predict the development of the Surfeit case.