scholarly journals Dispute Resolution in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-51
Author(s):  
Henneke Brink
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 370-374
Author(s):  
Weixia Gu

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ambitiously aspires toward expanding regional markets and facilitating economic integration across Asia and Europe. It has been regarded as a game-changer on the landscape of dispute resolution market, triggering a proliferation of “adjudication business.” This report examines the dynamics of international dispute resolution in context of the BRI, discussed from the three following perspectives: (1) BRI investors and disputants; (2) three major means of dispute resolution on offer; and (3) institutions involved.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-39
Author(s):  
Justice Steven Chong

Abstract Historically, Singapore has played an important role in the growth and success of the old maritime Silk Road. Today, Singapore remains an important stop on the Belt and Road, though its advantages now also lie in its position as a trusted, neutral forum for the efficient resolution of disputes as well as a platform for the sharing of ideas for the development of a legal framework for dispute resolution in the Belt and Road Initiative. Three initiatives have been taken by Singapore to strengthen its new position, including the Asian Business Law Institute, the Singapore International Commercial Court, and the Singapore–China Annual Legal and Judicial Roundtable.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Julien Chaisse ◽  
Xu Qian

In the global development of new international commercial dispute resolution centers, the China International Commercial Court (CICC) represents a genuine innovation in China's legal history. The CICC aims to become a dispute resolution “one stop shop” (combining litigation, arbitration, and mediation) for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) related disputes. Despite its name and ambition, however, the CICC operates more like a domestic court. The CICC's stringent jurisdictional requirements and conservative institutional design show that the CICC cannot serve its stated objective of attracting new investment opportunities or foreign parties to the Chinese forum. These defects are not fatal but will have to be addressed for the CICC to reach its full potential of hybridization of litigation and arbitration both in and beyond China.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document