保存先:
| 第一著者: | |
|---|---|
| フォーマット: | Recurso digital |
| 言語: | |
| 出版事項: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| 主題: | |
| オンライン･アクセス: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20064644 |
| タグ: |
タグ追加
タグなし, このレコードへの初めてのタグを付けませんか!
|
目次:
- <p><span>This interdisciplinary working paper examines structural vulnerabilities faced by foreign investors and long-term foreign residents in Laos through the lenses of state capture, Special Economic Zone governance, transnational extraction, and institutional asymmetry. Combining arbitration records, sanctions documentation, governance research, and autoethnographic observation, the study explores recurring patterns involving asset loss, legal obstruction, limited enforcement capacity, and constrained access to effective remedies.<br><br>The paper analyzes three primary case studies spanning nearly two decades. The first concerns the international arbitration case Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao PDR (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10), in which foreign investors obtained favorable arbitration rulings that reportedly remained difficult to fully enforce. This case is used to illustrate broader structural tensions between formal legal victories and practical recovery within weakly enforced environments.<br><br>The second case examines the Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone (GTSEZ), including sanctions imposed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and HM Treasury against Zhao Wei and the Kings Romans Group. Drawing on UNODC reporting and international sanctions records, the paper discusses how Special Economic Zones may create regulatory ambiguities, overlapping authority structures, and enforcement limitations that complicate accountability and oversight.<br><br>The third case is an autoethnographic account involving the author’s reported experiences between 2019 and 2026, including capital conversion through informal exchange systems, investment into property and physical assets, subsequent loss of access or control, and prolonged difficulties obtaining institutional or legal response. The paper explicitly frames these observations as non-generalizable and descriptive rather than adjudicated factual determinations.<br><br>A central analytical focus of the work is the concept of “state capture,” understood as systemic influence over state institutions by elite or networked actors. The paper examines how governance limitations, low regulatory transparency, enforcement fragmentation, and dependency on local intermediaries may create structural asymmetries disadvantaging foreign nationals operating within weakly regulated environments.<br><br>The study further explores Special Economic Zones as hybrid governance interfaces that may simultaneously attract investment and weaken regulatory clarity. Long-term concession agreements, overlapping jurisdictional authority, and economic dependency are presented as potential contributors to enforcement complexity and practical impunity.<br><br>One of the paper’s primary conceptual contributions is the introduction of the “sovereign witness” framework. Rather than prioritizing traditional recovery through contested legal systems, the sovereign witness model describes individuals who respond to extraction environments through systematic documentation, publication, international notification, and reduction of reactive engagement. The framework is presented as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than prescriptive or empirically validated.<br><br>The paper argues that such approaches may potentially increase visibility, generate external scrutiny, and create reputational pressure within opaque systems, although causal effectiveness remains untested. Throughout the analysis, the author emphasizes distinctions between structural conditions, capacity limitations, and intentional coordination, avoiding definitive conspiracy claims while identifying recurring patterns associated with transnational extraction environments.<br><br>Ultimately, the study positions Laos as a case study for examining how governance constraints, regulatory fragmentation, and institutional asymmetries may interact within transnational investment environments, while introducing the sovereign witness concept as a possible adaptive response to unresolved extraction dynamics.</span></p>