Observations of interesting legal arguments from expert

Comments on Luke Nottage “China, national security, and investment treaties”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/24/china-national-security-and-investment-treaties/

I am an amateur economist and not a legal expert as Luke Nottage is. As a result, I would like to seek some clarifications from the expert on some of the points in this article, legalistic or otherwise. I hope that I can learn something useful from doing this.

I find the following statements fascinating. Nottage says “... If so, however, we are likely to see more cases like that involving Stern Hu. That is, the (more broadly frustrated) home state of a frustrated investor reacts – even in a later context – against what it may have perceived as over-eager invocation of the national security exception. The irony in this case, perhaps intentional, is that China is now using its own national security law against a citizen of Australia. But it would be particularly unfair to be making an example of an individual for the actions of his country, particularly when employed by a firm (Rio Tinto) not involved in Australia’s original invocation of the national security exception currently retained in its FDI legislation.”

Does this mean a link between the detention of Stern Hu by the Chinese authorities and an Australia’s invocation of the national security exception exists? On which ground or reliable information to prove that was the case?

What does “unfair” mean there? Does it mean it is known for sure that the individual involved is completely innocent of those accusations by the Chinese authorities?

Thirdly, while the firm (Rio Tinto) seemingly was not involved in Australia’s original invocation of the national security exception (I don’t know for which one), was that absolutely true that it didn’t involve in any undisclosed discussions with the government in relation to the matter? What would be Rio’s tactics in those discussions?

Fourthly, didn’t the firm’s board short-change in the background the proposed investor and contribute to the collapse of the deal? Of course by no means I would argue that that should be used as an excuse to detain its employees without their violations of the laws.