Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 20 - China and Investor-State Dispute Settlement

  • from Part V - China and Investment Governance
  • Edited by Henry Gao, Singapore Management University, Damian Raess, University of Bern, Ka Zeng, University of Arkansas
  • Book:
    China and the WTO
    Published online:
    14 September 2023
    Print publication:
    28 September 2023, pp 468-489
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    The past decade has witnessed a growing number of investor-state arbitration (ISA) cases based on China’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Given that China hosts many BITs that allow ISA and is a leading state in investment-exporting and investment-importing, China and its investors are likely to face more ISA cases. China’s ISA cases are not substantively different from others, but they give rise to a few systematic issues, relating to the applicability of Chinese BITs in the special administrative regions (SARs), state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and the interpretation of typical BIT provisions. China’s position paper on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform suggests that it prefers ISA as a major ISDS option and supports the inception of a WTO-style appeal mechanism for ISDS. China’s position is based on its ISA and WTO litigation experiences and conforms to its development strategy.