Abstract
Inconsistency has been said to be one of the most severe shortcomings the existing investor–State dispute settlement (the ISDS) system possesses. Inconsistency, if not cured, is likely to affect the legitimacy of the ISDS. Partly in response to the claims of inconsistency and illegitimacy of the ISDS, the EU has proposed to have a permanent investment court to replace the ISDS while the US proposed to have an appellate body for the current ISDS along with a large camp of undecided states having no firm position on the ISDS reform. China, on the other hand, has not issued an official response to the concept of a permanent investment court, partially because of its less active role in the use of the existing ISDS. More recent years have witnessed China’s increasing involvement in ISDS cases. The purpose of this article is to review these China BIT-related ISDS cases, in particular, the awards on jurisdiction, and the tribunals’ varying techniques in interpreting the ISDS clauses in China’s BITs with a focus on the jurisprudential analyses of these cases and the tribunals’ treaty interpretive techniques. Not surprisingly, the interpretative tendency has been quite uniform. In brief, the tribunals have tended to be more expansive when they were called upon to determine the jurisdictional issues. Although this article is largely jurisprudential, a sense of the tribunals’ arbitral techniques may help shape some foundational underpinnings for China’s policy response to the proposals to reform the ISDS system made by the EU, the US, and others.
A Causal Analysis of the R&D Interactions between the EU and the US
