Bippa Agreement Between Nepal And Other Countries

These arguments are useless, for no reason and totally illogical. If BIPPA is contrary to our national interest, why didn`t we hear an outcry of this level when Nepal signed bippa with other countries? It is important that the self-centered leaders who oppose BIPPA explain exactly how Nepal has been dominated and workers` rights undermined by signing such an agreement with five countries before it does so in India. In our low-investment economy, more investment is certainly a good thing and is in our national interest, as it will lead to more jobs and revenues and could spur growth. Similarly, Bangladesh assured that its relevant authority would review the draft BIPPA as soon as it was received and that the Authority would take the necessary steps for the early conclusion of the agreement between the two nations. With regard to Nepal`s proposal for a trilateral agreement between Nepal, Bangladesh and India to improve transit by rail and inland waterways between and between the three countries, Bangladesh agreed to revise the concept note as soon as it was received from Nepal. However, in Kathmandu, former Deputy Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli provoked a dispute by saying that Bhattarai was keeping Nepalese political parties in the dark because of the deal. Earlier on Friday, Bhattarais` meeting with UPA President Sonia Gandhi was postponed due to his poor health, but he met with a large number of other leaders, including foreign and finance ministers, President Pratibha Patil, Vice President Hamid Ansari and opposition leader Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj. He also visited Rajghat. The agreement aims to promote and protect the investments of the two countries of the other, with the ultimate goal of increasing the bilateral flow of investments. The concept of investment encompasses any type of asset, including intellectual property rights. While most of the issues in the Nepal-India agreement resemble other internationally signed PPIs, some provisions and the scope of definitions have caused confusion and misinformed debate.

According to BIPPA, investments „should not be nationalized, expropriated or subject to other measures having a similar effect, except for reasons of public purpose, in accordance with the law, on a non-discriminatory basis and subject to fair and equitable compensation.“ In order to avoid confusion, it is clear in concrete terms what constitutes an indirect expropriation (having an effect equivalent to a direct expropriation without a formal transfer of ownership or complete seizure) and how it is determined (a fact-based investigation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a number of relevant factors set out in the agreement). In addition, in the event of losses due to war, armed conflict, emergencies or riots or riots, Indian investors should be treated and compensated as we do to our own investors or third party investors. This is confusing as to whether we should compensate for internal company events, such as work strikes and supply-side issues, such as rising costs (or falling profits or losses) due to the throwing of sticks. While Nepal has already signed biPPA with six countries (including India), India has signed such an agreement with 80 countries (as of May 2011), 70 of which have already entered into force and the rest are in the process of implementation. Nepal signed its first BIPPA with France on 2 May 1983. This was followed by agreements with Germany (20 October 1986), the United Kingdom (2 March 1993), Mauritius (3 August 1999), Finland (3 February 2009) and India. In South Asia, India bippa with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal….