China’s Stance on Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Evolution, Challenges, and Reform Options

Agarwal A (2019) Rethinking the regulation of international foreign investment: recent developments in Brazil, South Africa and India. Indian J Int Econ Law 10:1–17 Alvarez JE (2011) The public international law regime governing international investment. Brill Nijhoff, The Hague Amerasinghe CF (2004) Local remedies in international law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Berger A (2011) The politics of China’s investment treaty-making program. In: Broude T, Busch ML, Porges A (eds) The politics of international economic law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 162–185 Berger A (2013a) Investment rules in Chinese preferential trade and investment agreements: is China following the global trend towards comprehensive agreements? https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_7.2013.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2020 Berger A (2013) Investment rules in Chinese PTIAs: a partial ‘NAFTA-ization’ reintegration. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 297–333 Berger A (2015) Hesitant embrace: China’s recent approach to international investment rule-making. JWIT 16:843–868 Brauch MD (2017) Exhaustion of local remedies in international investment law. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/best-practices-exhaustion-local-remedies-law-investment-en.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2020 Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (2018) From bilateral arbitral tribunals and investment courts to a multilateral investment court: options regarding the institutionalization of investor-state dispute settlement. Springer, Berlin Cai C (2006) Outward foreign direct investment protection and the effectiveness of Chinese BIT practice. JWIT 7:621–652 Cai C (2009) China-US BIT negotiations and the future of investment treaty regime: a grand bilateral bargain with multilateral implications. JIEL 12:457–506 Caplan LM, Sharpe JK (2013) Chapter 18: United States. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 755–851 Carrai MA (2019) China’s malleable sovereignty along the Belt and Road Initiative: the case of the 99-year Chinese lease of Hambantota Port. NYU J Int Law Pol 51:1061–1099 Chen A (2006) Should the four great safeguards in Sino-foreign BITs be hastily dismantled? Comments on provisions concerning dispute settlement in model US and Canada BITs. JWIT 7:899–933 Chen H (2020) Reforming ISDS: a Chinese perspective. In: Li Y, Qi T, Bian C (eds) China, the EU and international investment law: reforming investor-state dispute settlement. Routledge, London, pp 100–111 Chi M (2017) From Europeanization toward Americanization: the shift of China’s dichotomic investment treaty-making strategy. Can Foreign Policy J 23:158–170 Chi M, Wang X (2015) The evolution of ISA clauses in Chinese IIAs and its practical implications: the admissibility of disputes for investor-state arbitration. JWIT 16:869–898 De Brabandere E, Lemeire S (2017) The jurisdiction ratione temporis of international investment tribunals: some observations on the Decision of the Tribunal in Ping An v Belgium. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2994093. Accessed 23 Sept 2020 Douglas Z (2011) The MFN clause in investment arbitration: treaty interpretation off the rails. J Int Dispute Settl 2:97–113 Du M, Shen W (2020) The future of investor-state dispute settlement: exploring China’s changing attitude. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–24 Ferdinand P (2016) Westward ho—the China dream and ‘One belt, One road’: Chinese foreign policy under Xi Jinping. Int Affs 92:941–957 Gallagher N (2016) Role of China in investment: BITs, SOEs, private enterprises, and evolution of policy. ICSID Rev 31:88–103 Hadley K (2013) Do China’s BITs matter? Assessing the effect of China’s investment agreements on foreign direct investment flows, investors’ rights, and the rule of law. Georget J Int Law 45:255–324 Huang J (2018) Procedural models to upgrade BITs: China’s experience. LJIL 31:93–115 Hwang M, Chang A (2015) Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v Sanum Investments Ltd: a tale of two letters. ICSID Rev 30:506–524 Hwang M, Chang A (2018) Of forks and dead ends: Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. ICSID Rev 33:156–180 Ji Y (2011) Voluntary ‘westernization’ of the expropriation rules in Chinese BITs and its implication: an empirical study. JWIT 12:81–99 Lee J (2013) An important first stride, but beware of the pitfalls: a critical analysis of the ISDS mechanism of the 2012 Korea-China-Japan Trilateral Investment Treaty. Chin JIL 12:509–541 Levine M (2019) Towards a fourth generation of Chinese treaty practice: substantive changes, balancing mechanisms, and selective adaption. In: Chaisse J (ed) China’s international investment strategy: bilateral, regional, and global law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 205–221 Qi T (2020) China’s policy on ISDS reform: institutional choice in a diversified era. In: Li Y, Qi T, Bian C (eds) China, the EU and international investment law: reforming investor-state dispute settlement. Routledge, London, pp 112–123 Reinisch A (2011) How narrow are narrow dispute settlement clauses in investment treaties? JIDS 2:115–174 Ren Q (2016) Ping An v Belgium: temporal jurisdiction of successive BITs. ICSID Rev 31:129–137 Roberts A (2018) Incremental, systemic, and paradigmatic reform of investor-state arbitration. AJIL 112:410–432 Rooney KM (2007) ICSID and BIT arbitrations and China. J Int Arbitr 24:689–712 Scharaw B (2018) The (provisional) end of debates on narrow dispute settlement clauses in PRC first-generation BITs?—China Heilongjiang et al v Mongolia. Arbitr Int 34:293–306 Schill SW (2007) Tearing down the Great Wall: the new generation investment treaties of the People’s Republic of China. Cardozo J Int & Comp Law 15:73–118 Schill SW, Bray HL (2017) The brave new (American) world of international investment law: substantive investment protection standards in mega-regionals. In: Rensmann T (ed) Mega-regional trade agreements. Springer, Cham, pp 123–154 Schill SW, Vidigal G (2020) Designing investment dispute settlement à la carte: insights from comparative institutional design analysis. LAPE 18:314–344 Shan W (2005) The legal framework of EU-China investment relations: a critical appraisal. Hart Publishing, Portland Shen W (2010) Is this a great leap forward? A comparative review of the investor-state arbitration clause in the ASEAN-China Investment Treaty: from BIT jurisprudential and practical perspectives. J Int Arbitr 27:379–419 Shen W (2011) The good, the bad or the ugly? A critique of the Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence in Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru. Chin JIL 10:55–95 Titi C (2015) International investment law and the European Union: towards a new generation of international investment agreements. EJIL 26:639–661 Van den Berg AJ (2019) Appeal mechanism for ISDS awards: interaction with the New York and ICSID Conventions. ICSID Rev 34:156–189 Vidigal G, Stevens B (2018) Brazil’s new model of dispute settlement for investment: return to the past or alternative for the future? JWIT 19:475–512 Willems JY (2011) The settlement of investor state disputes and China: new developments on ICSID jurisdiction. S C J Int Law Bus 8:1–62 Zhang S (2017) China’s approach in drafting the investor-state arbitration clause: a review from the ‘Belt and Road’ regions’ perspective. CJCL 5:79–109 Zhao S (2019) China’s Belt-Road Initiative as the signature of President Xi Jinping diplomacy: easier said than done. J Contemp China 28:1–17