Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

6-2018

Abstract

Investor-State arbitration is in a state of flux. In recent years, doubts about its adequacy have become apparent: questions of coherence, consistency, legitimacy, and utility have rendered fragile the central place of investor-State arbitration in global foreign direct investment (FDI) governance. Three threads of reform have been advanced as a corrective to these deficiencies, encompassing incremental reform, institutional reform, and fundamental reform. China is perhaps the most influential nation not to have declared a preference for one future or another. For over a decade, the Chinese approach to investor-State arbitration has been in a state of disequilibrium: bilateral investment treaties have routinely made provision for investor-State arbitration, and yet these provisions have lain dormant. Though still in its infancy, recent developments in China-related arbitrations suggest a new willingness to utilize these provisions, setting the course for a convergence of Chinese law and practice. In the context of substantial FDI inflows, growing FDI outflows, and an extensive web of international investment agreements, China has the potential to assume a leading role in the development of dispute-settlement mechanisms around the globe. This article considers whether China’s interests are best served by the promotion of investor-State arbitration and whether this approach is likely to involve in- cremental reform, institutional reform or fundamental reform.

Discipline

Asian Studies | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | International Trade Law

Publication

Chinese Journal of Comparative Law

Volume

6

Issue

1

First Page

73

Last Page

102

ISSN

2050-4802

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxy002

Download

Share

COinS