2. This Agreement shall remain in force for a period of ten (10) years and shall remain in force thereafter indefinitely unless either Contracting Party notifies the other Contracting Party in writing one year in advance of its intention to terminate this Agreement.
3. In respect of investments made prior to the termination of this Agreement, the provisions of Articles 1 to 15 of this Agreement shall remain in force for a further period of ten (10) years from the date of the termination.
4. The Agreement may be revised by mutual written consent of the Contracting Parties. Any revision or termination of this Agreement shall be effected without prejudice to any rights or obligations accruing or incurred under this Agreement prior to the effective date of such revision or termination.
Conclusion
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.
DONE in duplicate at Yaounde, on the 24th day of December 2013, in the Korean, French and English languages, all texts being equally authentic. In case of any divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON
Attachments
Footnotes
The Contracting Parties confirm their shared understanding that:
1. An action or a series of actions by a Contracting Party cannot constitute an expropriation unless it interferes with a tangible or intangible property right in an investment.
2. Article 5 addresses two situations. The first is direct expropriation, where an investment is nationalized or otherwise directly expropriated through formal transfer of title or outright seizure.
3. The second situation addressed by Article 5 is indirect expropriation, where an action or a series of actions by a Contracting Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.
(a) The determination of whether an action or a series of actions by a Contracting Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers all relevant factors relating to the investment, including:
(i) the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or a series of actions by a Contracting Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred;
(ii) the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations (2); and
(iii) the character of the government action, including its objectives and context. Relevant considerations could include whether the government action imposes a special sacrifice on the particular investor or investment that exceeds what the investor or investment should be expected to endure for the public interest.
(b) Except in rare circumstances, such as, for example, when an action or a series of actions is extremely severe or disproportionate in light of its purpose or effect, non-discriminatory regulatory actions by a Contracting Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, and real estate price stabilization (through, for example, measures to improve the housing conditions for low-income households), do not constitute indirect expropriations. (3)
(2) For greater certainty, whether an investor's investment-backed expectations are reasonable depends in part on the nature and extent of governmental regulation in the relevant sector. For example, an investor's expectations that regulations will not change are less likely to be reasonable in a heavily regulated sector than in a less heavily regulated sector.
(3) For greater certainty, the list of "legitimate public welfare objectives" in subparagraph (b) is not exhaustive.