The Optimization Path of the International Investment Arbitration Appeal Mechanism under the "Belt and Road" Initiative

Zhishan Chen

doi:10.54097/4apnd069

Authors

Zhishan Chen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/4apnd069

Keywords:

Abstract

Since its introduction in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative has become a model of international and regional economic cooperation. Since its development, shaping a business environment based on international rules and with the characteristics of internationalization, rule of law, and facilitation has become one of the important driving forces for the deepening and innovative development of the "Belt and Road" construction. However, due to the complex factors involved in international investment dispute settlement, there is a significant lag in the relevant mechanisms in practice, making it difficult to meet the needs of international investment in the "Belt and Road" for efficient dispute resolution. Based on this practical problem, this study combines the methods of legal economics, legal sociology and legal text analysis by comparing and analyzing the existing international investment dispute arbitration institutions and appellate mechanisms, such as the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) mechanism and the dispute settlement clauses under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Systematically identify the advantages and disadvantages of existing mechanisms. At the same time, fully considering the complex background of countries along the "Belt and Road", it is finally proposed to build an international investment appeal and arbitration mechanism based on a hybrid framework with "inclusive multilateralism" as the core concept, in order to provide strong support for the deepening and development of the "Belt and Road" construction through the improvement of the rule of law system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1]Innovation of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism between Investors and States in the Belt and Road Initiative. International Business Research, 2022, 43(04).

[2]A Prospective Study on the Operation of the Appellate Tribunal for EU FTA International Investment Disputes. Journal of Yantai University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, (01).

[3]The TPP's Investment Chapter: Entrenching, rather than reforming, a flawed system. Lise Johnson, Lisa Sachs. http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2015/11/TPP-entrenching-flaws-21-Nov-FINAL.pdf. 2025.

[4]Ghori U. Investment Court System or Regional Dispute Settlement: The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Dispute Settlement. Bond Law Review, 2018, 30: 83-118.

[5]Katz R. Modeling an International Investment Court after the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2016, 22: 163-188.

[6]Du Yuqiong, Huang Zilin. Retrial of the Construction of International Investment Arbitration Appeal Mechanism. Journal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 48(01).

[7]Talgatova Altynai. Research on the Belt and Road Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism. 2021.

[8]Research on the Innovation of the Belt and Road Dispute Settlement Mechanism: From the Perspective of International Law and Comparative Law. Law Review, 2018, (2).

[9]International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. 2024 annual report. Washington, DC: Author, 2024.

[10]Liu Wenjia. On the Reform of ISDS Appeal Mechanism and China's Countermeasures. Frontiers of Social Sciences, 2021, 10(11): 3206-3213.

[11]Jin Woo Kim, Lucy M. Winnington-Ingram. Investment Court System Under EU Trade and Investment Agreements: Addressing Criticisms of ISDS and Creating New Challenges. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 2021, 16(5): 181-192.

[12]Chen Yu. Advancing Predictability via a Judicialized Investment Court? A Fresh Look Through the Lens of Constructivism. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2022, 13(3): 370-392.

[13]Cécile Rapoport. Balancing on a tightrope: Opinion 1/17 and the ECJ's narrow and tortuous path for compatibility of the EU's investment court system (ICS). Common Market Law Review, 2020, 57(6): 1725-1772.

[14]Chen H. China’s Innovative ISDS Mechanisms and Their Implications. AJIL Unbound, 2018, 112: 207-211.

[15]Łągiewska M. International Dispute Resolution of BRI-Related Cases: Changes and Challenges. Journal of Contemporary China, 2022, 33(149): 809-822.

[16]Bedard J, Herlihy D, Nelson T G. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement significantly curtails foreign investment protection. Skadden, 2018.

[17]Yao Lu. China's response in the context of international investment arbitration reform. Law Journal, 2024, 12(8): 4960-4966.

[18]Liu X. Improving the rules-based internationalization, rule of law, and facilitation of the business environment: A case study of the establishment of the "Belt and Road" international investment arbitration mechanism. Research on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 2021, (2).