Abstract
Notwithstanding China’s endorsement of investor-state arbitration (ISA) more than a decade ago, few investor claims have been initiated against it. These concerns are not peculiar to China. Economically and politically powerful states, not least of all the United States, are less frequently subject to ISA than poorer states for much the same reason. What is increasingly likely is that, China is preparing itself and its investors abroad for investor-state proceedings in the future. This is evident, for example, in China’s growing interest in the functioning of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), among other institutions, in its inclusion of ISA in its Model Bilateral Investment Agreement and in various regional and bilateral agreements it has concluded. China is now one of the biggest recipients of foreign investment in the world, as well as being a key player in outward foreign direct investment. In light of China’s rise in the foreign investment sphere and the consequence this may have on its engagement with investment claims, this Chapter has two primary purposes. The first purpose is to examine China’s limited experience with ISA under bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The second purpose is to identify how China is likely to develop its investor-state dispute resolution regime through strategic investment alliances with other states without sacrificing its distinctive national interests including those of its investors abroad.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
UNCTAD (2018b).
- 2.
- 3.
On the growth of FDI in China, see the statistics provided by Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of China (2018) at: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/statistic/foreigninvestment/201812/20181202815485.shtml.
- 4.
The Outline of this Plan is available at: http://english.gov.cn/official/2005-07/29/content_18334.htm.
- 5.
See Cai (2006).
- 6.
See Shan and Gallagher (2009, §§ 1.77–1.82).
- 7.
- 8.
For a list of China’s BITs, see: http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_pcbb/docs/bits_china.pdf. The text of each BIT is available at: http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/docsearch____779.aspx. On China’s investment treaty partners, see: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet. See also, Kragelund (2009); Bennell (1997); Alden and Davies (2006); Davies (2008); Huliaras and Magliveras (2007).
- 9.
Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China [中华人民共和国外商投资法], promulgated on 15 March 2019, effective 1 January 2020.
- 10.
See UNCTAD (2018b).
- 11.
See, e.g. ICSID, ‘List of Contracting States and Other Signatories of the Convention’, http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/. See also, Willems (2011); Heymann (2008); Schreuer (2001), Chapter 1.
- 12.
An example of China’s endorsement of ISA under the ICSID and UNCITRAL is contained in Articles 5 and 9 of the Germany-China BIT which came into force on 11 December 2005. Article 10(2) of that BIT provides an umbrella clause, providing that each state party shall respect its treaty obligations relating to investors from the other state party. On the provisions in China’s Model BIT, see e.g. Cohen and Schneiderman (2017), pp. 10–128.
- 13.
Ekran Berhad v People’s Republic of China (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/15) (hereafter ‘Ekran Berhad’) and Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v People’s Republic of China (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25).
- 14.
Hela Schwarz GmbH v People’s Republic of China (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19) (hereafter ‘Hela Schwarz GmbH’).
- 15.
Stern Hu, an Australian businessman of Chinese origins, was found guilty in 2010 by a Chinese court of stealing commercial secrets and accepting bribes. See Bath (2010).
- 16.
- 17.
See Smith (2010).
- 18.
See Vladimir and Moise Berschader v Russian Federation, award in Stockholm under the auspices of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 21 April 2006, available at: http://italaw.com/cases/documents/142; RosInvest Co UK Ltd v The Russian Federation, award in Stockholm under the auspices of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 12 September 2010, available at: http://italaw.com/documents/RosInvestCoAward.pdf.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
See Nottage and Weeramantry (2011), p. 25.
- 22.
On China’s shifting position with regard to investment arbitration, see Bath (2011).
- 23.
Moser (1998).
- 24.
See e.g. Liu (2019).
- 25.
See e.g. Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC (FACV Nos, 5, 6 & 7 of 2010) in which the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, in a judgment regarding the ability of states to claim sovereign immunity before Hong Kong courts, decided by majority that foreign states enjoy absolute immunity from jurisdiction. See generally, Yang Xiaodong (2012) State Immunity in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012).
- 26.
See CIETAC: http://cietac.org/index.php?m=Page&a=index&id=42&l=en (hereafter ‘CIETAC 2015 Arbitration Rules’); International Centre for Dispute Resolution: http://www.adr.org/icdr, International Chamber of Commerce: http://www.iccwbo.org, London Court of International Arbitration: http://www.lcia.org/, Trakman (2006, pp. 1, 19–20), 26–28 (discussing private international commercial arbitration associations). See further, Trakman (2008, pp. 292–305).
- 27.
CIETAC 2015 Arbitration Rule, Art 35(1).
- 28.
CIETAC 2015 Arbitration Rule, Art 49(1).
- 29.
CIETAC 2015 Arbitration Rule, Arts 31(1) and 32(2).
- 30.
On the rules governing the appointment and conduct of arbitrators internationally, see e.g. Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance 2000; Article 16, Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom; Article.12–18, Sweden Arbitration Act; and Chapter 3, Commercial Arbitration Rules of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association 1997. See also, Trakman (2012a).
- 31.
Beijing Yingjia Real Estate Development Ltd. v Third Branch of BUCC (Beijing Union Construction Group Corporation) Ltd., Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court, 2003, in Lin (ed) (2008), p. 42.
- 32.
But see Beijing Longrun Huizhitong Real Estate Developments Ltd Corp. v Beijing Second Construction Projects Ltd Corp, Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court, 2004 (in which it was held that an arbitrator’s failure to disclose that the defendant had nominated that arbitrator to another prior arbitration did not violate the Beijing Arbitration Association Rules. See generally Lin (2018).
- 33.
Polytek Engineering Company Ltd v Hebei Import & Export Corporation, 16 January 1998, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1997, in van den Berg (ed) (1998, pp. 666–684).
- 34.
Article 32 of CIETAC Rules:
The arbitration tribunal shall hold oral hearings when examining a case. At the request of the parties or with their consent, oral hearings may be omitted if the arbitration tribunal also deems that oral hearings are unnecessary, and then the arbitration tribunal may examine the case and make an award on the basis of documents only.
Cf Art. 35(2) of the 2015 CIETAC Rules:
The arbitral tribunal shall hold oral hearings when examining the case. However, the arbitral tribunal may examine the case on the basis of documents only if the parties so agree and the arbitral tribunal consents or the arbitral tribunal deems that oral hearings are unnecessary and the parties so agree.
See also, Article 45 of the Chinese Arbitration Association (CAA): ‘The evidence should be demonstrated only at the tribunal section, and the parties have the right to question the evidence’.
- 35.
9 February 1999, Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, FACV No. 10 of 1998, in van den Berg (ed) (1999, pp. 652–677).
- 36.
See e.g. Han (2000, p. 191).
- 37.
HCCT, No. 41, 2010.
- 38.
HCCT, No. 41, 2010, § 30.
- 39.
HCCT, No. 41, 2010, §§ 92–96.
- 40.
[2011] HKEC 514.
- 41.
On similarities and differences between international commercial arbitration and investment arbitration, see Nottage and Miles (2009).
- 42.
See: Tza Yap Shum v The Republic of Peru (hereafter ‘Tza Yap Shum’), Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence, 12 February 2007; Final Award on the Merits, 7 July 2011, summary available at: http://www.italaw.com/documents/TzaYapShumAwardIACLSummary.pdf; Tza Yap Shum, Decision on annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/07/6, IIC 677 (2015), despatched 12 February 2015, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, World Bank. See also Sect. 9 of this Chapter below.
- 43.
See Tza Yap Shum, 19 June 2009. See also, Renta 4 S.V.S.A. v The Russian Federation, award on jurisdiction in Stockholm under the auspices of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 20 March 2009; Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA [2007] EWHC 2851, 5 December 2007.
- 44.
On such an expansive interpretation of a MFN clause, see e.g. MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/07), Award, 25 May 2004; Emilio Agustin Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7), Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000 (hereafter ‘Emilio Agustin Maffezini’). On limits placed on the scope of an MFN clause in a BIT, see Siemens v Republic of Arg. (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8), Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004 (hereafter ‘Siemens’). See generally on controversy associated with the meaning and scope of MFN clauses, Maupin (2011); Banifatemi (2009).
- 45.
On an expansive interpretation of a MFN clause, see e.g. Emilio Agustin Maffezini, [54]–[56]; Siemens. But see Plama Consortium Ltd v Republic of Bulgaria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24), Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005.
- 46.
See ICSID (2018).
- 47.
- 48.
Tza Yap Shum, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence, 12 February 2007; Final Award on the Merits, 7 July 2011 See also Eliasson (2011).
- 49.
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of the People’s Republic of China Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments done at Beijing on 9 June 1994, entered into force 1 February 1995, 1901 U.N.T.S. 257 (hereafter ‘Peru-China BIT’), Art 1(2)(a).
- 50.
Tza Yap Shum, § 31.
- 51.
Tza Yap Shum, § 31.
- 52.
Tza Yap Shum, § 32.
- 53.
Peru-China BIT, Ch 10, Art 126.
- 54.
ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, Art 26.
- 55.
Peru-China BIT, Art 3(5). See also Eliasson (2011).
- 56.
Tza Yap Shum, § 218.
- 57.
Tza Yap Shum, § 88.
- 58.
Tza Yap Shum, Final Award on the Merits, 7 July 2011.
- 59.
Tza Yap Shum, Decision on annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/07/6, IIC 677 (2015), despatched 12 February 2015, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, World Bank.
- 60.
On the general applicability of an MFN clause, see Renta 4 S.V.S.A. v The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. ARB V024/2007, §101; RosInvestCo UK Ltd v The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. ARB V079/2005, § 130.
- 61.
China Heilongjiang International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp., et al. v Mongolia, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Case (China-Mongolia BIT 1991), http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1378.
- 62.
China-Mongolia BIT, Art 8. See also, China’s Model BIT, Art 4(iv).
- 63.
See Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v Kingdom of Belgium (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29) (hereafter ‘Ping An’). See also, Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments done at Brussels on 4 June 1984, entered into force 5 October 1986, 1938 U.N.T.S.305. See generally Neligan (2012).
- 64.
See Ping An.
- 65.
See Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd. v Republic of Yemen (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/30). See details at: https://www.iisd.org/itn/2017/09/26/a-look-into-chinas-slowly-increasing-appearance-in-isds-cases-dilini-pathirana/.
- 66.
- 67.
Ekran Berhad.
- 68.
Ekran Berhad, proceedings suspended pursuant to the parties’ agreement on 22 July 2011. See: http://icsid.worldbank.org.
- 69.
The provision for an ISA tribunal to adhere to ‘domestic legal procedure’ is contained in Article 4(ii) of China’s Model BIT.
- 70.
This BIT article is modeled on Article 4(iv) of China’s Model BIT providing for compensation.
- 71.
The terms of any settlement reached by the disputing parties is not publicly known.
- 72.
- 73.
Hela Schwarz GmbH.
- 74.
See: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/. See generally UNCTAD (2018a).
- 75.
An Chen, from mainland China, was appointed to 2 annulment proceedings and to 1 ISDS arbitration tribunal. Teresa Cheng from Hong Kong SAR was appointed to 1 annulment proceeding and 1 ISDS tribunal.
- 76.
The only annulment procedure to date involving China was Peru seeking an annulment of an ISA award in the case of Tza Yap Shum.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
See, e.g. Latha Jishnu, Secretive Tribunals, Hidden Damages (Interview) (31 January 2012), http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/secretive-tribunals-hidden-damages. In this interview, van Harten observes that developing countries sometimes are the target of treaties directed at enhancing opportunities for foreign investors from other states and on occasions, leading to significant losses for those target countries. See also, Trakman (2012a).
- 80.
An assertion of sovereignty would not be exceptional, given the historical practices of states. See e.g. Shan et al. (eds) (2008), Part Four (commenting on the complexity of sovereignty in international investment law); Stumberg (1998, pp. 491, 503–504), 523–525 (discussing sovereignty); Jackson (1990); Jennings and Watts (eds) (1992, p. 927).
- 81.
See Trakman (2012b).
- 82.
See Peterson (2012).
- 83.
There is empirical data confirming such concerns. See Kantor (2011, p. 10), demonstrating that approximately 76% of the cases in which investment treaty awards were rendered up to June 2006 involved states that fell at or below Number 50 on the Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perception Index. See also, Franck (2007a). The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators demonstrated further that 68% of those States were in the bottom 60% of its Index for the ‘rule of law’: World Bank (2018).
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
For commentary on these events, as well as investment arbitration in Latin America generally, see Appleton (2010).
- 89.
Compare ICSID, List of Contracting States and Other Signatories to the Convention (http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/) with World Bank, Member Countries (http://web.worldbank.org/).
- 90.
See Bretton Woods Project (2009).
- 91.
- 92.
For statistics on China’s FDI between January and May 2018, see: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/statistic/foreigninvestment/.html.
- 93.
While the ICSID administers ISA, the UNCITRAL is not an administering authority. The UNCITRAL website states: ‘UNCITRAL does not administer arbitration or conciliation proceedings, nor does it provide services. in connection with dispute settlement proceedings’. See: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration_faq.html#dispute. Other institutions, most notably the PCA, administer investor-state disputes under the UNCITRAL Rules.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
CIETAC Investment Rules, Arts 32 and 55.
- 97.
ICSID (2018).
- 98.
See Franck (2011). Franck undertakes a quantitative analysis of awards with Latin American countries as parties, and finds that ‘on the whole, … ICSID arbitration awards were not statistically different from other arbitral processes, which is preliminary evidence that ICSID arbitration was not necessarily biased or that investment arbitration operated in reasonably equivalent ways across forums’. See also Franck (2011, p. 998). On ICSID’s figures, including that foreign investors have won 48% of ICSID/Additional Facility cases, see ICSID (2018).
- 99.
See Stiglitz (2010) (providing an account of these recessionary forces and their global consequences). On the New International Economic Order through the General Assembly of the United States, a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, and a Declaration on the Permanent Sovereignty of States over Natural Resources, see G.A. Res. 3281(xxix), U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 3150, UN Doc. A/9631 (12 December 1974) (Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States); G.A. Res. 3201 (S-VI), U.N. Doc. A/res/S-6/3201 (1 May 1974) (New International Economic Order). See also Trakman (2010, pp. 15–16), 20.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
See M.C.I. Power Grp. L.C. & New Turbine, Inc. v Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6), Annulment Decision, para 24 (19 October 2009); see also Hochtief AG v Arg. (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31), 7 October 2011, (providing different interpretations of a treaty in the same case in the dissent of Christopher Thomas, Q.C.). See generally Puig and Kinnear (2010) (providing a systematic approach towards investment arbitration, through the prism of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)).
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.
On the development of such international investment norms, see OECD Investment Committee, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/oecdinvestmentcommittee.htm. See generally Trakman (2006), von Staden (2011) (discussing how different investment policies can influence investment law).
- 106.
- 107.
See, e.g. Schreuer and Weiniger (2008, p. 1188) (discussing the absence of binding precedents, at least in principle, in international investment law).
- 108.
- 109.
See generally, Dolzer and Schreuer (2008), Ch 1; Schill (2009), Chs 1–2. See also, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Negotiating Text (24 April 1998), http://italaw.com/documents/MAIDraftText.pdf.
- 110.
- 111.
For concerns that ISA arbitrators who are commercial, not public, lawyers will pay less attention to the public policy consequences of their awards for developing states than to the plain words of treaties devised by dominant treaty, see generally Schill (ed) (2010), van Harten (2007, pp. 122–151). See also, Reinisch (2011) (discussing the restrictive construction of investment agreements).
- 112.
See, e.g. Dolzer and Schreuer (2008), Ch 1–2 (discussing the alleged foundations of investment law in contract and property.
- 113.
On such differences, see, e.g. Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco (Decision on Jurisdiction), ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No. ARB/00/4, 23 July 2001; (2003) 42 ILM 609; See also, Sasson (2010) (see especially Chapter Four for a discussion of property in investment treaty context); Garcia-Bolivar (2010) (discussing the requirements that must be met in order to invoke the ICSID’s jurisdiction); Schreuer (2001, pp. 90–91) (discussing jurisdictional requirements under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention).
- 114.
Illustrating these variable conceptions of ‘fair and equitable’ treatment is a series of cases commencing with the ICSID award in Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain (Award on the merits) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/97/7, 13 November 2000), [64]; MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile S.A. v Republic of Chile (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/01/7, 25 May 2004), [178]; and Laird (2004).
- 115.
On such ‘legitimate expectations’, see Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v The Czech Republic (Partial Award) (Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, 17 March 2006), [304]; Waste Management, Inc v The United Mexican States (Final Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB(AF)/00/3 (NAFTA), 30 April 2004), [98]; International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v The United Mexican States (Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules (NAFTA), 26 January 2006), [147]; GAMI Investments Inc v The Government of the United Mexican States (Final Award) (Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, 15 November 2004), [100].
- 116.
- 117.
On the varied and inconsistent interpretations of investment treaties, see Kurtz (2010) (Kurtz identifies three different methodologies of interpretation). But see Burke-White and von Staden (2008) (considering the interpretive challenges posed by provisions for non-precluded measures, such as for maintenance of security and public order).
- 118.
On inconsistent ISA decisions in the CME/Lauder cases against the Czech Republic, see Lauder v Czech Republic (Final Award), ad hoc (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 3 September 2001); CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic (Partial Award), ad hoc (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 13 September 2001); CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic (Final Award) (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 14 March 2003); (2003) 62 IIC; See also Franck (2011, pp. 825, 826, 909–914).
- 119.
- 120.
The UNCITRAL Rules are a general set of rules that can be applied flexibly to resolve any type of international dispute and are adopted widely globally, including for resolving investor-state disputes. Some of the amendments to the UNCITRAL rules were inspired by the rising use of the Rules in ISA. See: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-2013/UNCITRAL-Arbitration-Rules-2013-epdf.
- 121.
On similarities and differences between international commercial arbitration and investment arbitration, see Nottage and Miles (2009).
- 122.
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.
See also Moser (1998).
- 126.
- 127.
Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v the Republic of Argentina (Order in Response to a Petition by Five Non-Governmental Organizations for Permission to Make an Amicus Curiae Submission) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/03/19, 12 February 2007) (hereafter ‘Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A.’); (Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/03/19, May 2005). The petition challenged the decision by the Government of Argentina to accede to the ICSID treaty on grounds that it violates the constitutional guarantees of citizens of Argentina to participate in proceedings. While the government of Argentina was willing to hear the petition, the complainant company was not. However, the Attorney General of Argentina published on the internet the information in his possession on the related cases. See also Alfaro and Lorenti (2005).
- 128.
See, e.g. GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine (Award) (hereafter ‘GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft’) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/08/16), March 2011; Talsud, S.A. v United Mexican States (Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB(AF)/04/4), 16 June 2010; Gemplus, S.A., SLP, S.A. and Gemplus Industrial, S.A. de C.V. v United Mexican States (Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB(AF)/04/3, 16 June 2010) (hereafter ‘Gemplus’).
- 129.
See, e.g. GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No. ARB(AF)/04/4), 16 June 2010; Gemplus. Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia (Order Taking Note of Discontinuance) (ICSID Case No ARB/02/3), 28 March 2006. See further Vandevelde (2007) (providing an overview and analysis of the case).
- 130.
Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae (ICSID Case No ARB/03/19), 19 May 2005, [19] and [22].
- 131.
On public statements by the NAFTA parties on open hearings, see Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (2009). This practice is further reflected in the interpretation of Chapter 11 by the Free Trade Commission, confirming the decision in Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1), para 103 that ‘[n]othing in the NAFTA imposes a general duty of confidentiality on the disputing parties to a Chapter Eleven arbitration’.
- 132.
See Gómez (2012).
- 133.
ICSID tribunals began to admit third party interventions in 2007, after the ICSID’s new rule 37 came into force. See e.g. Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), 2 February 2007; Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. See International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules 95–96 (2006); Baldwin et al. (2006) (discussing ‘tactics’ that may be employed in attempts to ‘delay’ or ‘avoid’ compliance with ICSID Awards).
- 134.
See e.g. Antonietti (2006).
- 135.
See ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, ICSID/15 (April 2006), Art 48(4). cf. ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules, Art 53(3), http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/ICSID/AdditionalFacilityRules.jsp (almost identical text). See also Franck (2004–2005, p. 1616), Maupin (2011, p. 162).
- 136.
See, e.g. Nathan (2000).
- 137.
See Bath (2011).
- 138.
- 139.
UNCTAD (2010a, p. xxiii).
- 140.
On the UNCTAD’s most recent report on investor-state dispute settlement, see UNCTAD (2018a).
- 141.
See e.g. Art 12(3) of the Singapore-China BIT, providing: ‘If a dispute involving the amount of compensation resulting from expropriation, nationalization or other measures having effect equivalent to nationalization or expropriation cannot be settled within six months after resort to negotiation. it may be submitted to an international arbitral tribunal established by both parties’.
- 142.
See Tang (2005, p. 547).
- 143.
Schneider (1998, p. 57).
- 144.
- 145.
- 146.
On the complexity of sovereignty in international investment law, see Trakman (2018, p. 207).
- 147.
See e.g. Kurtz (2010). Kurtz relies on the commentary of Joseph Stiglitz to assert that ‘“all countries engage in some discrimination” against foreign investors’, and concedes that ‘protectionism is a political temptation that is not confined to any political or legal tradition’ (at p. 11). But see Shen (2018, pp. 799–840).
- 148.
See Mukand (2006).
- 149.
- 150.
On the successful use of the defense of necessity, see e.g. Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9), 5 September 2008, para 28. But see Pope & Talbot Inc. v Can., Award, part III (10 April 2001) (UNCITRAL Award). See also Pope & Talbot Inc. v Gov’t of Canada, Foreign Affairs & Int’l Trade Canada, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/pope.aspx?lang=en.
- 151.
On governmental bureaucracies faced by foreign investors in Asia, in particular in China and Australia, see Bath (2012).
- 152.
References
Agyemang AA (1988) African states and ICSID arbitration. CILSA 21:177
Alden C, Davies M (2006) A profile of the operations of Chinese multinationals in Africa. South African J Int’l Aff 13(1):83
Alfaro CE, Lorenti PM (2005) The growing opposition of argentina to ICSID arbitral tribunals: a conflict between international and domestic law? J World Investment Trade 6:417
Ali SF (2011) The Morality of conciliation: an empirical examination of arbitrator ‘role moralities’ in east asia and the west. harv Negot L Rev 16(1):1
Antonietti A (2006) The 2006 amendments of the ICSID rules and regulations and the additional facility rules. ICSIC Rev—Foreign Investment L J 21: 427
Appleton S (2010) Latin american arbitration: the story behind the headlines. Int Bar Assoc, London, 31 March 2010. http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=78296258-3B37-4608-A5EE-3C92D5D0B979
Bakircioglu O (2007) The application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in freedom of expression and public morality cases. German L J 8:711
Baldwin E, Kantor M, Nolan M (2006) Limits to enforcement of ICSID awards. J Int’l Arb 23:1
Banifatemi Y (2009) The emerging jurisprudence on the most favored nation treatment in investment arbitration. In: Bjorklund A, Laird I, Ripinksy S (eds), Investment treaty law: current issues III, remedies in international investment law, emerging jurisprudence of international investment law. british institute of international and comparative law, London, Part II (Chapter 7)
Bath V (2010) The Chinese legal system and the Stern Hu Case. East Asia Forum. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/28/the-chinese-legal-system-and-the-stern-hu-case/. 28 Mar 2010
Bath V (2011) The quandary for chinese regulators: controlling the flow of investment into and out of China. In: Bath V, Nottage L (eds), Foreign Investment and Dispute Resolution Law and Practice in Asia. Routledge, New York (Chapter 4)
Bath V (2012) Foreign investment, the national interest and national security: foreign direct investment in Australia and China. Sydney L Rev 34:5
Bennell P (1997) Foreign direct investment in Africa: Rhetoric and reality. SAIS Rev 17(2):127
Bernasconi-Osterwalder N (2012) Analysis of the European commission’s draft text on investor-state dispute settlement for EU agreements, Investment Treaty News. IISD. http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/07/19/analysis-of-the-european-commissions-draft-text-on-investor-state-dispute-settlement-for-eu-agreements/. 19 July 2012
Bretton Woods Project (2009) ICSID in Crisis: straight-jacket or investment protection? http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-564878. 10 July 2009
Brower C, Steven L (2001) NAFTA Chapter 11: Who then Should Judge? Developing the international rule of law under NAFTA Chapter 11. Chicago J Int’l L 2: 193
Brown C (2013) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties (Oxford Commentaries on International Law). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Buckley PJ, Clegg J, Cross AR, Liu X, Voss H, Zheng P (2007) The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. J Int’l Bus Studies 38(4):499
Burke-White WW, von Staden A (2008) Investment protection in extraordinary times: the interpretation and application of non-precluded measures provisions in bilateral investment treaties. Va J Int’l L 48:307
Cai CY (2006) Outward foreign direct investment protection and the effectiveness of Chinese BIT practice. J World Invest Trade 7:621
Coe JJ (2002) Domestic court control of investment awards: necessary evil or achilles heel within NAFTA and the proposed FTAA. Int’l Arb 19:185
Cohen T, Schneiderman D (2017) The political economy of chinese bilateral investment treaty policy. Chinese J Comparative Law 5(1):10–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxx011
Cotula L (2011) Law and power in foreign investment in Africa: shades of grey in the shadow of the law. Routledge, London and New York
Davies M (2008) China’s developmental model comes to Africa. Rev African Pol Econ 35(1):134
De Brabandere E (2011) NGOs and the ‘public interest’: the legality and rationale of amicus curiae interventions in international economic and investment disputes. Chi J Int’l L 12:85
Dodge WS (2001) Case report: waste management, Inc v Mexico. Am J Int’l L 95:186
Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2008) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, New York
Dugan C, Wallace D, Rubins N, Sabahi B (2008) Investor-state arbitration. Oxford University Press, New York
Dumberry P (2010) Are BITs representing the ‘new’ customary international law in international investment law? Pa St Int’l L Rev 28:675
Eliasson N (2011) China’s investment treaties: a procedural perspective. In: Bath V, Nottage L (eds), Foreign investment and dispute resolution law and practice in Asia. Routledge, New York (Chapter 5)
Emerson C (2011) Trading our way to more jobs and prosperity. Government trade policy statement. http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trading-our-way-to-more-jobs-and-prosperity.html#investor-state. 12 April 2011
European Commission (2011) Public consultation on the future relationship between the EU and China. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/?consul_id=153. 6 July 2011
European Commission (2012) Proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council, establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0335&from=EN. 21 June 2012
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (2009) NAFTA—Chapter 11—investment settlement of disputes between a party and an investor of another party: transparency. 9 Sept 2009
Franck SD (2004–2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham L Rev 73: 1521
Franck SD (2007a) Empirically evaluating claims about investment treaty arbitration. N C L Rev 86:1
Franck SD (2007b) Foreign direct investment, investment treaty arbitration, and the rule of law. Pac McGeorge Global Bus Dev L J 19:337
Franck SD (2011) The ICSID effect? Considering potential variations in arbitration awards. Va J Int’l L 51:977
Gantz DA (2006) An appellate mechanism for review of arbitral decisions in investor-state disputes: prospects and challenges. Vanderbilt J Transnat’l L 39:39
Garcia L B (2012) We have to get out of the ICSID. venezuelanalysis.com. http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6766. 24 Jan 2012
Garcia-Bolivar OE (2010) Protected investments and protected investors: the outer limits of ICSID’s reach. Trade Law Development 2:145
Gómez KF (2012) Rethinking the role of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: how to draw the line favorably for the public interest. Fordham Int’l L J 35:510
Gu J, Humphrey J, Messner D (2008) Global governance and developing countries: the implications of the rise of China. World Dev 36(2):274
Heymann MCE (2008) International law and the settlement of investment disputes relating to China. J Int Econ Law 11(3):507–526
Hindelang S (2004) Bilateral investment treaties, custom and a healthy investment climate: the question of whether BITs influence customary international law revisited. J World Inv Trade 5:789
Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) (2011) International investment law and general international law: from clinical isolation to systematic integration. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Huliaras A, Magliveras K (2007) Truths, lies and misperceptions: United States and European Union reactions to the growing Chinese presence in Africa (paper presented at the Second European Conference on African Studies, University of Leiden)
ICSID (2012) Venezuela submits a notice under article 71 of the ICSID convention, Washington DC. http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=Announcements&pageName=Announcement100. 26 Jan 2012
ICSID (2018) The ICSID caseload—statistics. https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/ICSID%20Web%20Stats%202018-1(English).pdf (Issue 2018-1)
Jackson RH (1990) Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the third world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jennings R, Watts A (eds) (1992) Oppenheim’s international law. Longman, London
Johnson AR (2010) Comment: rethinking bilateral investment treaties in sub-Saharan Africa. Emory L J 59:919
Kantor M (2011) The transparency agenda for uncitral investment arbitrations: looking in all the wrong places. http://www.iilj.org/research/documents/IF2010-11
Kaplinsky R, Messner D (2008) Introduction: the impact of asian drivers on the developing world. World Dev 36(2):197
Karton JDH (2012) A conflict of interests: seeking a way forward on publication of international arbitral awards. Arb Int’l 28:447–486
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Fan K (2008) Integrating mediation into arbitration: why it works in China. J Int’l Arb 25(4):479–492
Kinnear M (2009) The continuing development of the fair and equitable treatment standard. In: Bjorklund AK, Laird IA, Ripinsky S (eds), Investment treaty law: current issues III. Remedies in international investment. british institute of international and comparative law, London, Part II, Chapter 6
Kragelund P (2009) Knocking on a wide open door: Chinese investments in Africa. Rev African Pol Econ 36(122):479
Krever T (2011) The legal turn in late development theory: the rule of law and the world bank’s development model. Harv Int’l L J 52:287
Kueh YY (ed) (1997) The political economy of Sino-American relations: a greater China perspective. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong
Kurtz J (2010) Adjudging the exceptional at international investment law: security, public order and financial crisis. Int’l Comp L Q 59:325
Kurtz J (2012) Australia’s rejection of investor-state arbitration: causation, omission and implication. ICSIC Rev—Foreign Investment L J 27(1): 65–86
Laird IA (2004) MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile—recent developments in the fair and equitable treatment standard. Transnational Dispute Management. https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=289. 4 Oct 2004
Lin Y (ed) (2008) Newest commercial arbitration and judicial practical cases on specific issues, vol 1. UIBE Press, Beijing
Lin Y (2018) Judicial review of arbitration: law and practice in China. Wolters Kluwer, Leiden
Liu Q (2019) Chinese ‘case law’ in comparative studies: illusions and complexities. Asian J Comparat Law (forthcoming)
Marian C (2010) Balancing transparency: the value of administrative law and mathews-balancing to investment treaty arbitrations. Pepp Disp Resol L J 10:275
Maupin JA (2011) MFN-based jurisdiction in investor-state arbitration: is there any hope for a consistent approach? J Int’l Econ L 14:157
McLachlan C (2008) Investment treaties and general international law. Int’l Comp L Q 57:361
Mills A (2011) The public-private dualities of international investment law and arbitration. In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 97–116
Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of China (2016) Director’s Comments. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/zt_cv/lanmucc/201602/20160201251492.shtml
Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of China (2018) Statistics of FDI in January–October 2018. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/statistic/foreigninvestment/.html
Moser MJ (1998) CIETAC arbitration: a success story? J Int’l Arb 1:30
Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) (2008) The Oxford handbook of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Muhammad N (2019) A comparative approach to margin of appreciation in international law. Chinese J Comparative Law 7(1) (forthcoming)
Mukand SW (2006) Globalization and the ‘confidence game’. J Int’l Econ 70:406
Nakamura T (2009) Brief empirical study on Arb-Med in the JCAA arbitration. JCAA News Lett 22:10–12
Nathan KVSV (2000) ICSID convention: the law of the international centre for settlement of investment disputes. Juris Publishing, Huntington
Neligan M (2012) China insurer ping an files claim for fortis loss. Reuters. http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/pingan-fortis-idINL5E8KO9V520120924. 24 Sept 2012
Neumayer E, Spess L (2005) Do Bilateral investment treaties increase foreign direct investment to developing countries? World Dev 33(10):1567
Nottage L, Miles K (2009) ‘Back to the future’ for investor-state arbitrations: revising rules in Australia and Japan to meet public interests. J Int Arbitr 26(1):25–58
Nottage L, Weeramantry R (2011) Investment arbitration in Asia: five perspectives on law and practice. In: Bath V, Nottage L (eds), Foreign investment and dispute resolution law and practice in Asia, Routledge, New York (Chapter 2)
Paulsson J (2007) International arbitration and the generation of legal norms: treaty arbitration and international law. In: van den Berg AJ (ed), International arbitration 2006: back to basics? (International Council for Commercial Arbitration Congress Series No. 13). Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, p 879
Peinhardt C, Allee T (2011) Devil in the details? The investment effects of dispute settlement variation in BITs. In: Sauvant KP (ed), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2010–2011. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Chapter 21)
Peterson LE (2012) South Africa pushes phase-out of early bilateral investment treaties after at least two separate brushes with investor-state arbitration. Inv Arb Reporter. http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20120924_1. 23 Sept 2012
Puig S, Kinnear M (2010) NAFTA chapter eleven at fifteen: contributions to a systemic approach in investment arbitration. ICSID L Rev 25:225
Qiao X (2001) The research on arbitration right. Law Press Beijing, China
Qin JY (2003) WTO-plus obligations and their implications for the world trade organization legal system: an appraisal of the China accession protocol. J World Trade 37(3):483
Reinisch A (2011) How narrow are narrow dispute settlement clauses in investment treaties? J Int’l Disp Settlement 2:115
Rooney KM (2007) ICSID and BIT arbitrations and China. J Int’l Arb 24:704
Rubinacci L (2012) EU-China investment relationship, update on state of play. DC trade civil society dialogue. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/march/tradoc_149185.pdf. 7 Mar 2012
Salacuse JW (2007) The treatification of international investment law. Law Bus Rev Am 13:155
Sasson M (2010) Substantive law in investment treaty arbitration: the unsettled relationship between international and municipal law. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands
Schill SW (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schill SW (ed) (2010) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schneider M (1998) Combining arbitration with conciliation. In: van den Berg AJ (ed), International dispute resolution: towards an international arbitration culture (ICCA Congress Series No. 8). Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 57
Schreuer C (2001) The ICSID convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schreuer C, Weiniger M (2008) A doctrine of precedent? In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 1188
Schwebel S (2005) The influence of bilateral investment treaties on customary international law. Transnat’l Disp Mgmt 2(5):1
Shan W, Simons P, Singh D (eds) (2008) Redefining sovereignty in international economic law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, OR
Shan W, Gallagher N (2009) Chinese investment treaties: policies and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shan W, Gallagher N, Zhang S (2012) National treatment for foreign investment in China: a changing landscape. ICSID Rev 27:120
Shany Y (2005) Toward a general margin of appreciation doctrine in international law? Eur J Int’l L 16:907
Shen W (2010) Case note, beyond the scope of ‘investor’ and ‘investment’: who can make an arbitration claim under a Chinese BIT? Some implications from a recent ICSID case. Asian Int’l Arb J 6:164
Shen W (2018) Evolution of Non-discriminatory standards in China’s BITs in the context of EU-China BIT negotiations. Chinese J Int Law 17(3):799–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmy018
Shihata IFI (2009) Towards a greater depoliticization of investment disputes: the roles of ICSID and MIGA. In: Lu KW, Verheyen G, Perera SM (eds) Investing with confidence: understanding political risk management in the 21st Century. World Bank Publications, Washington D C, pp 2–35
Smith G (2010) Chinese bilateral investment treaties restrictions on international arbitration. Arb 76: 58. http://gordonsmithlegal.com.au/resources/Chinese%20BITs%20(GS).pdf
Sornarajah M (2013) The case against an international investment regime. In: Trakman LE, Ranieri N (eds), Regionalism in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Chapter 17)
Steingruber AM (2012) Consent in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stiglitz J (2010) Freefall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. W W Norton, New York
Stumberg R (1998) Sovereignty by subtraction: the multilateral agreement on investment. Cornell Int’l L J 31:491
Tang H (2005) Combination of arbitration with conciliation: Arb/Med. In: van den Berg AJ (ed), New horizons in international commercial arbitration and beyond (ICCA Congress Series No. 12). Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 547
Trakman LE (2006) Legal traditions and international commercial arbitration. Am Rev Int’l Arb 17:1
Trakman LE (2008) Arbitrating options: turning a morass into a panacea. UNSW L J 41(1):292–305
Trakman LE (2010) Foreign direct investment: hazard or opportunity? Geo Wash Int’l L Rev 41:1
Trakman LE (2011) Enter the Dragon IV: China’s proliferating investment treaty program. In: UNSW Centre for Law, Markets & Regulation. https://clmr.unsw.edu.au/article//enter-the-dragon-iv%3A–china%27s-proliferating-investment-treaty-program
Trakman LE (2012a) The ICSID under Siege. Cornell Int’l L J 45(3):603–665
Trakman LE (2012b) Rejecting investor-state arbitration in favor of domestic courts: the Australian example. J World Trade 46(1):83
Trakman LE (2012c) Investor state arbitration or local courts: will Australia set a new trend? J World Trade 46(1):83–120
Trakman LE (2013) Investor-state arbitration: the Australian case. In: Trakman LE, Ranieri N (eds) Regionalism in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Chapter 12)
Trakman LE (2018) Aligning state sovereignty with transnational public policy. Tulane Law Rev 93(2):207
Trakman LE, Ranieri N (2013) Regionalism in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tzanakopoulos A (2011) Denunciation of the ICSID Convention under the General International Law of Treaties. In: Hofmann R, Tams CJ (eds) International investment law and general international law: from clinical isolation to systemic integration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 75–93
UNCTAD (2010a). Investor–state disputes: prevention and alternatives to arbitration. In: UNCTAD series on international investment policies for development, xxiii. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/diaeia200911_en.pdf. May 2010
UNCTAD (2010b) Denunciation of the ICSID convention and BITS: impact on investor-state claims. IIA Issues Note No. 2. https://unctad.org/en/Docs/webdiaeia20106_en.pdf. Dec 2010
UNCTAD (2018a) Investor-state dispute settlement: review of developments in 2017. IIA Issues Note No. 2. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcbinf2018d2_en.pdf. June 2018
UNCTAD (2018b) UNCTAD world investment report. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2018_en.pdf. 6 June 2018
van den Berg AJ (ed) (1998) Yearbook commercial arbitration 1998, vol XXIII. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
van den Berg AJ (ed) (1999) Yearbook commercial arbitration 1999, vol XXIV. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Vandevelde K (2005) A brief history of international investment agreements. UC Davis J Int’l L Pol’y 12:157
Vandevelde KJ (2007) Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v Republic of Bolivia. Am J Int’l L 101:179
Vincentelli IA (2010) The uncertain future of ICSID in Latin America. Law Bus Rev 16:409
von Staden A (2011) Towards greater doctrinal clarity in investor-state arbitration: The CMS, Enron and Sempra annulment decisions. Czech Y B Int’l L 2:207
Weeramantry JR (2012) Treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Willems JY (2011) The settlement of investor state disputes and China new developments on ICSID jurisdiction. South Carolina J Int’l Law Business 8:1
Wolff L-C (2010) Pathological foreign investment projects in China: patchwork or trendsetting by the supreme people’s court? Int’l Law 44:1001
World Bank (2018) Worldwide governance indicators. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
Yackee JW, Wong J (2010) The 2006 procedural and transparency-related amendments to the ICSID arbitration rules: model intentions, moderate proposals, and modest returns. In: Sauvant KP (ed), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2009–2010, Oxford University Press, Oxford (Chapter 6)
Yang X (2012) State immunity in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Trakman, L.E., Liu, Q., Chen, L. (2020). Investor-State Arbitration in China: A Comparative Perspective. In: Chen, L., Janssen, A. (eds) Dispute Resolution in China, Europe and World. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 79. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42974-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42974-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42973-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42974-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)