Book contents
- China and International Dispute Resolution in the Context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’
- China and International Dispute Resolution in the Context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I China, BRI and International Dispute Resolution
- Part II China, BRI and International Trade Dispute Resolution
- Part III China, BRI and Investment Dispute Resolution
- 5 ICSID and the Evolution of ISDS
- 6 Tackling Political Risks through Treatization along the Belt and Road: A Minilateral Solution
- 7 Multilateral Reform of Investor–State Dispute Resolution Mechanism
- 8 Energy Dispute Resolution along the Belt and Road
- Part IV China, BRI and Resolution of Maritime Disputes
- Index
7 - Multilateral Reform of Investor–State Dispute Resolution Mechanism
A Balance between Public Legitimacy Management and Private Efficiency Refinement
from Part III - China, BRI and Investment Dispute Resolution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2021
- China and International Dispute Resolution in the Context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’
- China and International Dispute Resolution in the Context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I China, BRI and International Dispute Resolution
- Part II China, BRI and International Trade Dispute Resolution
- Part III China, BRI and Investment Dispute Resolution
- 5 ICSID and the Evolution of ISDS
- 6 Tackling Political Risks through Treatization along the Belt and Road: A Minilateral Solution
- 7 Multilateral Reform of Investor–State Dispute Resolution Mechanism
- 8 Energy Dispute Resolution along the Belt and Road
- Part IV China, BRI and Resolution of Maritime Disputes
- Index
Summary
It looks at the reform of investor–state dispute settlement from the perspective of fast resolution, party autonomy and cost management. It proposes a Chinese perspective on Multilateral Investment Dispute Resolution (MIDR) system of balance between public legitimacy management and private efficiency refinement. The institutional structure of MIDR should be of internal balance, moderating three tensions between state and arbitrator, between investor and host state, and between state and arbitral tribunal during ex ante and ex post process of dispute resolution. The process of establishment of MIDR should be of external balance, moderating tensions between procedure and substance of MIDR, between MIDR and existing institutions, and between legal rights of MIDR stakeholders and political will of leading states.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- China and International Dispute Resolution in the Context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ , pp. 149 - 184Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
- 1
- Cited by