Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Adjudicating Disputes Along China’s New Silk Road: Towards Unity, Diversity or Fragmentation of International Law?

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyses dispute resolution in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) from the perspective of the debate on unity, diversity and fragmentation of international law. This article presents a critical perspective that although the BRI preaches unity through greater economic (and social) integration, it currently increases fragmentation by failing to offer a unified dispute resolution mechanism. The analysis considers how some of the major procedural issues perceived in the BRI—at the time of transnational dispute management—are being addressed. Approaching this from the perspective of diversity in international law provides a novel method to consider BRI adjudication, and (potentially) a concrete target (of unity) to aim towards for strengthening the BRI as a genuine transnational law-making process. However, the consequences of increased fragmentation in BRI dispute resolution are many, including multiplications of disputes in different forums (with different procedures, case law and legal remedies) which, in the long term, will bring deep fragmentation among BRI countries and become an impediment to the BRI’s success. Finally, this article asks whether unity in BRI dispute resolution is a realistic target, considering the Chinese State’s (perceived) preference for maintaining flexibility in relation to the initiative, and highlights the long-term consequences for international lawyers of the fragmentation in BRI dispute resolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For analyses of the phrase ‘community of common destiny’ in the BRI context see Wang and Zhao (2019); for a description of the conceptual weaknesses of the BRI see Lingliang (2016). Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the ‘Belt’ and the ‘Road’ during public speeches in Kazakhstan and Indonesia in September and October 2013.

  2. For an analysis of how BITs can help plug the gap in BRI governance see Huaxia and Lentner (2018); Casas i Klett and Serrano Oswald (2018); Li and Bian (2020); Chaisse and Kirkwood (2020). For an analysis of the use of both hard law and soft law in the BRI see Wang (2019a), in his paper Heng Wang coined the term ‘maximum flexibility’ to describe China’s BRI strategy as shaping legal frameworks that are sufficiently fluid and malleable to meet the extremely wide range of the BRI’s diverse challenges—Wang (2019a), p. 43.

  3. Regarding the China-EU CAI see Chaisse (2018); Li and Bian (2020); Wang and Li (2020); Xiaoyu (2021). Regarding RCEP see Wang H (2017b); Yin (2018); Vines (2018).

  4. Many scholars, e.g. Petersmann, identify several different types of BRI disputes, such as investment disputes or trade disputes. See Petersmann (2020), pp. 6–7.

  5. For a comprehensive analysis of the differences across BRI countries see Dahlan (2018), p. 109. See also Deng et al. (2020). In this article ‘BRI countries’ are the 143 States listed on the ‘Country Profiles’ section of the Belt and Road Portal of the People’s Republic of China, available at https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/info/iList.jsp?cat_id=10076 (accessed 27 June 2021).

  6. Petersmann (2020), p. 6. As regards criticism of the absence of regulation in BRI dispute regulation see Yu (2021).

  7. Franck (1995), p. 6.

  8. Prost and Clark (2006), p. 342.

  9. Ibid.; see also Martineau (2009); Koskenniemi and Leino (2002); Lindroos (2005); Benvenisti and Downs (2007); Holmes (2011); Broude (2013); Lehmann (2017); Popa (2018).

  10. Ibid.; see also Koskenniemi (2006); Fischer-Lescano et al. (2004); Leathley (2007); Cogan (2011); Caminos (2013); Werner et al. (2017).

  11. Rao (2004), pp. 931–932.

  12. See Pauwelyn (2004); See also Hafner (2004); Prost and Clark (2006); Michaels and Pauwelyn (2012); McInerney-Lankford (2012); Megiddo (2019).

  13. Greenwood (2015), p. 39.

  14. Ibid., p. 42.

  15. Ibid., p. 47.

  16. Petersmann (2020), p. 6.

  17. See Platsas (2009); Cho and Kurtz (2018); Chaisse (2019); Li and Bian (2020).

  18. Menon (2019), para. 50.

  19. See Sauvé (2019); Puig (2014); Basedow (2018); Legrand (1996).

  20. See generally Koskenniemi (2006); Andenas and Bjorge (2015).

  21. Details of BITs with China are available via the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/42/china (accessed 27 June 2021).

  22. See https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx (accessed 27 June 2021).

  23. For details of the parties to the New York Arbitration Convention see http://www.newyorkconvention.org/countries (accessed 27 June 2021).

  24. Chaisse and Olaoye (2020); Li and Bian (2020).

  25. See Lewis and Moise (2017); Waters (2017).

  26. See Jackson (2008); Kang (2017); Chaisse and Kirkwood (2021).

  27. See Russel and Berger (2019).

  28. The three areas have been selected by the authors on the basis of the literature reviewed (cited in this article) as well as presentations attended, and discussions participated in on similar topics in the previous two years.

  29. Fischer-Lescano et al. (2004), p. 1004.

  30. See Wang (2019a); Maxeiner (2008); see also Forum on the Belt and Road Legal Cooperation (2018) which contains the Statement of the Co-Chairs, which stated that there is also a growing need for more connectivity in legal infrastructure, rules and regulations and can be found at https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/t1573635.shtml (accessed 27 June 2021).

  31. Lingliang (2016), p. 539.

  32. The EU’s internal market has often been described as an ambiguous legal concept, see e.g. Weatherill (2017). See also Mulder (2018).

  33. See Chaisse and Matsushita (2018).

  34. See Belt and Road Portal, ‘Country Profiles’, supra n. 5.

  35. For instance, the Green Belt and Road Initiative, a leading private research organisation which lists several Chinese government departments as its partners, states that there were 138 Memoranda of Understanding by March 2020. For an analysis of the content of these Memoranda of Understanding see Dezan Shira and Associates (2018). For more information on the Green Belt and Road Initiative see https://green-bri.org/countries-of-the-belt-and-road-initiative-bri (accessed 27 June 2021).

  36. See Kavass (2007); Wang (2019b).

  37. Boltenko (2017), p. 192.

  38. See Chaisse and Kirkwood (2020).

  39. See Petersmann (2020), pp. 6–7.

  40. Boltenko (2017), pp. 194–195. See also Wang G (2017a); Dahlan (2018); D’Andrea & Partners Legal Counsel (2019).

  41. See Norton (2018); Dahlan (2019).

  42. See Erie (2020).

  43. Egger (2021), p. 192.

  44. Portland (2018).

  45. See https://www.sicc.gov.sg/about-the-sicc/establishment-of-the-sicc (accessed 27 June 2021).

  46. For details regarding the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts see https://www.adgm.com/adgm-courts (accessed 27 June 2021), regarding the Astana International Finance Centre Courts see https://court.aifc.kz/an-introduction/ (accessed 27 June 2021), regarding the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts see https://www.difccourts.ae/about-courts-2/ (accessed 27 June 2021) and regarding the Qatar International Court see https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/history-origins-court (accessed 27 June 2021). See also Erie (2020); Roberts (2021); Bookman and Erie (2021); Qian (2021).

  47. See Huo and Yip (2019); Chaisse and Qian (2021).

  48. Huo and Yip (2019), p. 912; see also Qian (2021).

  49. Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues regarding the Establishment of the International Commercial Courts (effective 1 July 2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/817.html (accessed 27 June 2021); see also Zhang (2020).

  50. Huo and Yip (2019); see also Ministry of Law, Republic of Singapore, Legislative Changes Tabled to Establish the Singapore International Commercial Court and to Update the Regulatory Framework for the Legal Profession, 7 October 2014, https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/sicc-and-legal-profession-regulatory-framework-update (accessed 27 June 2021).

  51. Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, Procedural Rules for the China International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court (For Trial Implementation) (effective 5 December 2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/1183.html (accessed 27 June 2021); see also Chaisse and Qian (2021).

  52. See Jackson (2008). The authors do not consider that the current impasse at the WTO DSB will affect its effectiveness in the long term. See Vidigal (2019); Hoekman and Mavroidis (2020).

  53. See https://www.hkiac.org/Belt-and-Road (accessed 27 June 2021); https://ebram.org/index.html (accessed 27 June 2021).

  54. See Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, https://siac.org.sg/69-siac-news/584-siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-the-china-international-economic-and-trade-arbitration-commission (accessed 27 June 2021).

  55. See Zhiwei (2017).

  56. See International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Guidance on Mediation of Belt and Road Disputes, https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-guidance-mediation-belt-road-disputes/ (accessed 27 June 2021); Singapore International Mediation Centre, SIMC and CCPIT Mediation Center establish international mediator panel to resolve BRI-related disputes, 25 January 2019, http://simc.com.sg/blog/2019/01/25/simc-and-ccpit-mediation-center-establish-international-mediator-panel-to-resolve-bri-related-disputes/ (accessed 27 June 2021).

  57. See https://www.hkiac.org/content/costs-duration (accessed 27 June 2021).

  58. These are the three tracks identified by Menon (2019); see also Menon (2014), paras. 53, 60 and 64; Chong (2020b), p. 32.

  59. Guo (2020), p. 224.

  60. Menon (2014); Erie and Prusinowska (2021).

  61. Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, passed on, issued on, and effective as of 9 April 1991, amended three times, most recently on 27 June 2017, effective as of 1 July 2017, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2017-06/29/content_2024892.htm (accessed 27 June 2021). See also Peng (2000); Ott (2001).

  62. Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court concerning the Application of the ‘Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China’, passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on 18 December 2014, issued on 30 January 2015, effective as of 4 February 2015, http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/01/id/148091.shtml (accessed 27 June 2021), Art. 544.

  63. China is reported to have entered into 39 Judicial Assistance Treaties (with 34 in force and including judgment recognition and enforcement clauses). Details of whether a country has a Judicial Assistance Treaty or Reciprocity Arrangement with China for the enforcement of foreign judgments as per China Justice Observer (2019b); see also Chong (2020a).

  64. See Tsang (2017). Note that the US and Germany have had judgments recognized and enforced on the basis of Reciprocity Arrangements.

  65. Ibid.

  66. The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is discretionary, considering (amongst others) whether the foreign judgment violates the basic principles of law, the State sovereignty and security, or the public interests of China.

  67. See Brand and Herrup (2008); Stewart (2019).

  68. For a comprehensive analysis of such reservations see Cai and Kolieb (2020).

  69. The Chinese judicial attitude changed around 2013–2015, coinciding with the release of the policy document ‘Vision and Actions on Jointly Building the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-century Maritime Silk Road’ (2015)—see Belt & Road Office, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2021); see also Office of the Leading Group for Promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (2019).

  70. Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, Several Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Judicial Services and Safeguards Provided by the People’s Courts for the ‘Belt and Road’ construction), issued on and effective as of 16 June 2015, http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/06/id/148302.shtml (accessed 27 Jun 2021), para. 6. The opinion suggests that a Chinese court can grant a cross-border judicial assistance request in the absence of any relevant enforcement precedent from that foreign country.

  71. For details of the case see Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, B&R Cases, Typical Case 13 (TC13) (2017) Kolmar Group AG, A Case of an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment of the High Court of Singapore) (9 October 2017), http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/belt-and-road/b-and-r-cases/typical-case-13; Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, The Special-Procedure Civil Ruling on an Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment and Ruling of a Foreign Court—Kolmar Group AG and Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. (2016) rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, on 9 December 2016, https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/judgments/jiangsu-2016-su-01-xie-wai-ren-3-civil-ruling (both accessed 27 June 2021). See also Xu (2018).

  72. Art. 7 of the Nanning Statement of the 2nd China-ASEAN Justice Forum (8 June 2017), https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/p/nanning-statement-of-the-2nd-china-asean-justice-forum (accessed 27 June 2021). See also Fangda Partners (2019).

  73. China Justice Observer (2018a).

  74. China’s position was reflected in a few parts of the HCCH Judgments Convention: e.g. in the preamble, in Art. 2 ‘Exclusions from Scope’ and Art. 19 ‘person(s) acting for the State’—see China Justice Observer (2019a).

  75. See Song (2018); Huang (2019); Tsang (2018); China Justice Observer (2018b); Wang and Chen (2019); Jie and Bing (2018).

  76. See n. 4.

  77. Menon (2014), para. 60.

  78. In relation to France see Lexis Nexis, France’s international court for dispute resolution, https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/dispute-resolution/frances-international-court-for-dispute-resolution; in relation to Germany see Baker and McKenzie, The Chamber for International Commercial Disputes at the District Court Frankfurt/Main, https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2018/10/international-commercial-disputes-frankfurt; and in relation to the Netherlands see the Netherlands Commercial Court, https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx (all accessed 27 June 2021).

  79. See Erie (2020).

  80. According to Requejo, the ‘international’ qualifier refers to the type of issues dealt with by the courts, and (sometimes) also to their composition—see Requejo (2019); see also Horigan (2015).

  81. See http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/193/195/index.html (accessed 27 June 2021). See a suite of provisions regarding the CICC—Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China: Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues regarding the Establishment of the International Commercial Courts (effective 1 July 2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/817.html; Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Regarding the Establishment of the International Commercial Court (Court Explanation No. 11 of 2018) (promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court, 27 June 2018; effective as of 1 July 2018), http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-104602.html (for an English translation see https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/belt-and-road/b-and-r-texts/20180701-provisions-re-intl-commercial-courts/); Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Inclusion of the First Group of International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation Institutions in the ‘One-stop’ Diversified International Commercial Dispute Resolution Mechanism (effective 5 December 2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/1144.html; Procedural Rules for the China International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court (For Trial Implementation) (effective 5 December 2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/1183.html; Working Rules of the International Commercial Expert Committee of the Supreme People’s Court (For Trial Implementation) (effective 5 December 2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/1146.html (all accessed 27 June 2021).

  82. Since many of the experts are non-Chinese and have substantial experience in dispute settlement in other international contexts it is anticipated that the CICC’s decisions may be harmonized, to some extent, with other international norms—see the Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, The Decision on Appointment of the First Group of Members for the International Commercial Expert Committee (2018), http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/235/245/index.html (accessed 27 June 2021).

  83. The CICC has only heard a handful of cases. The CICC only heard its first cases on 29 May 2019 (a shareholder dispute) and 31 May 2019 (a product liability dispute)—China International Commercial Court, People’s Republic of China (2019a) and (2019b); see also China Justice Observer (2019c).

  84. ‘Maximum flexibility’ is explained in n. 2.

  85. An example of the engagement between the CICC and other ICCs is the annual Singapore-China Legal and Judicial Roundtable—see https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/news/media-releases/media-release--3rd-singapore-china-legal-and-judicial-roundtable (accessed 27 June 2021).

  86. Menon (2014), para. 64.

  87. See Srivastava (2020), p. 24; Boele-Woelki (2010), pp. 17–21; Graziadei and Smith (2017); Monateri (2017).

  88. Unification, which involves adopting a uniform law, is generally the objective of harmonization, which involves adopting harmonized but not a uniform law. It is said that in practice the two terms are used interchangeably. See Srivastava (2020), pp. 28–30.

  89. See https://iccwbo.org/resources-for-business/incoterms-rules/ (accessed 27 June 2021); Chhina (2015).

  90. The CISG is quite comprehensive and robust as a project towards legal convergence, but is very limited in scope and will not often apply in legal projects related to the BRI. Furthermore, the CISG is also not applicable throughout all BRI countries, e.g. although many jurisdictions are parties to the convention (like China, Japan and Korea), some are not (like Kazakhstan or Hong Kong). The United Kingdom is also not a party to the convention, (which is relevant since many BRI project partners select the law of England and Wales in their documents). See Berman (2016); Ahuja (2018).

  91. See https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/commercial-contracts/unidroit-principles-2016 (accessed 27 June 2021). The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts drew heavily upon the earlier CISG and is a more mature and slightly broader instrument; however, since it was only intended to be a harmonizing tool, any usage is ultimately optional, and it did not establish any (immediate) uniformity of national laws. See also Perillo (1994).

  92. See Guide to International Master Franchise Arrangements, https://www.unidroit.org/publications/106-unidroit-publications/97-guide-to-international-master-franchise-arrangements-second-edition-2007; Model Law on Leasing, https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/leasing/model-law (both accessed 27 June 2021).

  93. See Model Contract Clauses, https://iccwbo.org/resources-for-business/model-contracts-clauses/ (accessed 27 June 2021).

  94. See Chen et al. (2018).

  95. See UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtexts/arbitration (accessed 27 June 2021); see International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules (2021) and Mediation Rules (2014), https://iccwbo.org/publication/arbitration-rules-and-mediation-rules/ (accessed 27 June 2021).

  96. See n. 85; see also Ping (2017).

  97. See Chen and Goldstein (2017); Han (2013); Lee (ed.) (2016); Bell (2005).

  98. Idrees et al. (2020).

  99. See https://abli.asia/Publications (accessed 27 June 2021).

  100. See https://asean.org/asean-economic-community/ (accessed 27 June 2021). See also Alburo (1990); Severino and Thuzar (2018).

References

  • Ahuja N (2018) The CISG in HK—to apply or not to apply? Hong Kong Lawyer, July 2018. http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/cisg-hong-kong-apply-or-not-apply. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Alburo F (1990) The ASEAN summit and ASEAN economic cooperation. In: Naya S, Takayama A (eds) Economic development in East and Southeast Asia: essays in honor of Professor Shinichi Ichimura. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore, pp 299–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Andenas M, Bjorge E (2015) Introduction: from fragmentation to convergence in international law. In: Andenas M, Bjorge E (eds) A farewell to fragmentation: reassertion and convergence in international Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Basedow R (2018) The WTO and the rise of plurilateralism—what lessons can we learn from the European Union’s experience with differentiated integration? J Int Econ Law 21:411–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell G (2005) Harmonisation of contract law in Asia—harmonising regionally or adopting global harmonisations—the example of the CISG. Sing J Legal Stud 362–372

  • Belt & Road Office, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2021) Vision and actions on jointly building the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-century Maritime Silk Road (issued jointly by the National Development and Reform Committee of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China and Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China and authorised by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China in March 2015). https://www.beltandroad.gov.hk/visionandactions.html. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Benvenisti E, Downs G (2007) The empire’s new clothes: political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanf Law Rev 60:595–631

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman P (2016) The inevitable legal pluralism within universal harmonization regimes: the case of the CISG. Unif Law Rev 21:23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K (2010) Unifying and harmonizing substantive law and the role of conflict of laws. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boltenko O (2017) Resolving disputes along the Belt and Road: are the battle lines drawn? Asian Disput Rev 19:190–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookman P, Erie M (2021) Experimenting with international commercial dispute resolution. Am J Int Law Unbound 115:5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand RA, Herrup P (2008) The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: commentary and documents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Broude T (2013) Keep calm and carry on: Martti Koskenniemi and the fragmentation of international law. Temple Int Comp Law J 27:279–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai W, Kolieb J (2020) Between national interests and global business: China’s possible reservations to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. J Int Disput Settl 11:295–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caminos H (2013) The growth of specialized international tribunals and the fears of fragmentation of international law. In: Boschiero N et al (eds) International courts and the development of international law: essays in honour of Tullio Treves. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 55–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Casas-i-Klett T, Serrano-Oswald O (2018) Free trade agreements as BRI’s stepping-stone to multilateralism: is the Sino-Swiss FTA the gold standard? In: Zhang W, Alon I, Lattemann C (eds) China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Palgrave Studies of Internationalization in Emerging Markets. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 75–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J (2018) China–European Union investment relationships towards a new leadership in global investment governance? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J (2019) China’s international investment strategy: bilateral, regional, and global law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J, Matsushita M (2018) China’s ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative: mapping the world’s normative and strategic implications. J World Trade 52:163–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J, Kirkwood J (2020) Chinese puzzle: anatomy of the (invisible) Belt and Road investment treaty. J Int Econ Law 23:245–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J, Olaoye K (2020) The tired dragon: casting doubts on China’s investment treaty practice. Berkeley Bus Law J 17:134–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J, Kirkwood J (2021) One stone, two birds: can China leverage WTO accession to build the BRI? J World Trade 55:287–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J, Qian X (2021) Conservative innovation: the ambiguities of the China International Commercial Court. Am J Int Law Unbound 115:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Goldstein G (2017) The Asian principles of private international law: objectives, contents, structure and selected topics on choice of law. J Priv Int Law 13:411–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y et al (2018) Understanding the multiple functions of construction contracts: the anatomy of FIDIC model contracts. Constr Manag Econ 36:472–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhina R (2015) The uniform customs and practice for documentary credit: are they merely a set of contractual terms? Bank Financ Law Rev 30:245–265

    Google Scholar 

  • China International Commercial Court, People’s Republic of China (2019a) The China International Commercial Court hears its first case. http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/1237.html. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • China International Commercial Court, People’s Republic of China (2019b) The first International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court holds its first public hearing. http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/1251.html. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • China Justice Observer (2018a) Time to loosen the criteria for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in China. China Justice Obserser, 8 March 2018. https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/time-to-loosen-the-criteria-for-recognizing-and-enforcing-foreign-judgments-in-china. Accessed 27 Jan 2021

  • China Justice Observer (2018b) Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements in China. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326395398_Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Judgments_in_China_Vol_1_No_1-CJO. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • China Justice Observer (2019a) China and HCCH Judgments Convention in 2019. https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/china-and-hcch-judgments-convention-in-2019. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • China Justice Observer (2019b) List of China’s cases on recognition of foreign judgments. China Justice Observer, 16 July 2019. https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/list-of-chinas-cases-on-recognition-of-foreign-judgments. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • China Justice Observer (2019c) Case tracking series. https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/cicc-case-tracking-series-01. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Cho S, Kurtz J (2018) Convergence and divergence in international economic law and politics. Eur J Int Law 29:169–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong A (2020a) Out now: list of China’s cases on recognition of foreign judgments. Conflict of Laws.Net: Views and news in private international law (23 April 2020). https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/out-now-list-of-chinas-cases-on-recognition-of-foreign-judgments/. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Chong S (2020b) Dispute settlement in the Belt and Road Initiative: lessons from the Singapore Experience. Chin J Comp Law 8:30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cogan J (2011) The idea of fragmentation. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 105, pp 123–125

  • D’Andrea & Partners Legal Counsel (2019) BRI: dispute resolution and jurisdictional issues. Eurobiz online, 3 January 2019. https://www.eurobiz.com.cn/bri-dispute-resolution-and-jurisdictional-issues/. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Dahlan M (2018) Dimensions of the New Belt and Road international order: an analysis of the emerging legal norms and a conceptionalisation of the regulation of disputes. Beijing Law Rev 9:87–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlan M (2019) Dispute regulation in the institutional development of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: establishing the normative legal implications of the Belt and Road Initiative. In: Quayle P, Gao X (eds) International organizations and the promotion of effective dispute resolution: AIIB Yearbook of International Law 2019. Brill | Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 121–144

  • Deng F, Wang Y, Li Z, Liang X (2020) China’s technology spillover effects in the countries along the Belt and Road—evidence from 49 BRI countries. Appl Econ 52:5579–5594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezan Shira and Associates (2018) Vassal states? Understanding China’s Belt and Road MoU. Silk Road Briefing, 8 February 2018. https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2018/02/08/vassal-states-understanding-chinas-belt-road-mou/. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Egger P (2021) Putting the China-EU comprehensive agreement on investment in context. China Econ J 14:187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erie M (2020) The new legal hubs: the emergent landscape of international commercial dispute resolution. Va J Int Law 59:25–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Erie M, Prusinowska M (2021) The future of foreign arbitration in the People’s Republic of China: current developments and challenges ahead. Asia Pac Law Rev 29:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Fangda Partners (2019) Enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards in China: overview. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-619-0132?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Fischer-Lescano A et al (2004) Regime-collisions: the vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 25:999–1046

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (1995) Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziadei M, Smith L (2017) Comparative property law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C (2015) Unity and diversity in international law. In: Andenas M, Bjorge E (eds) A farewell to fragmentation: reassertion and convergence in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 37–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guo Y (2020) From conventions to protocols: conceptualizing changes to the international dispute resolution landscape. J Int Disput Settl 11:217–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G (2004) Pros and cons ensuing from fragmentation of international law. Mich J Int Law 25:849–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Han S (2013) Principles of Asian contract law: an endeavor of regional harmonization of contract law in East Asia. Villanova Law Rev 58:589–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman B, Mavroidis P (2020) To AB or not to AB? Dispute settlement in WTO reform. J Int Econ Law 23:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes P (2011) The rhetoric of ‘legal fragmentation’ and its discontents. Evolutionary dilemmas in the constitutional semantics of global law. Utrecht Law Rev 7:113–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horigan D (2015) From Abu Dhabi to Singapore: the rise of international commercial courts. Int J Humanit Manag Sci 3:78–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang J (2019) Reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China: promising developments, prospective challenges and proposed solutions. Nord J Int Law 88:250–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huaxia L, Lentner G (2018) Paving the Silk Road BIT by BIT: an analysis of investment protection for Chinese infrastructure/projects under the Belt and Road Initiative. In: Chaisse J, Górski J (eds) The Belt and Road Initiative, law, economics and politics. Brill | Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 250–283

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huo Z, Yip M (2019) Comparing the international commercial courts of China with the Singapore International Commercial Court. Int Comp Law Q 68:903–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idrees R, Cheema Z, Riaz J (2020) Role of harmonization and unification in perspective of China–Pakistan economic corridor physical infrastructure and applicable laws. J Adv Res Law Econ 11:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J (2008) The case of the World Trade Organization. Int Aff 84:437–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jie C, Bing X (2018) On the reform and suggestions to apply the reciprocity principle to enforce foreign judgments under the ‘One Belt One Road’ Initiative. Jiangsu Soc Sci 2:254–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang S (2017) One Belt, One Road initiative into a new regional trade agreement: implication to the WTO dispute settlement system. Transnatl Disput Manag 3:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavass I (2007) WTO accession: procedure, requirements and costs. J World Trade 41:453–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, 13 April 2006. https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15:553–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathley C (2007) An institutional hierarchy to combat the fragmentation of international law: has the ILC missed an opportunity? New York Univ J Int Law Politics 40:259–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee Y (2016) A study on draft articles, principles of Asian contract law, performance and non-performance. Research Institute for Asia Private Law, Seoul

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1996) European legal systems are not converging. Int Comp Law Q 45:52–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann M (2017) Legal fragmentation, extraterritoriality and uncertainty in global financial regulation. Oxf J Leg Stud 37:406–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D, Moise D (2017) One Belt One Road (‘OBOR’) roadmaps: the legal and policy frameworks. Transnatl Disput Manag 3:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Bian C (2020) China’s stance on investor-state dispute settlement: evolution, challenges, and reform options. Neth Int Law Rev 67:503–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroos A (2005) Addressing norm conflicts in a fragmented legal system: the doctrine of lex specialis. Nord J Int Law 74:27–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingliang Z (2016) Conceptual analysis of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: a road towards a regional community of common destiny. Chin J Int Law 15:517–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Martineau A (2009) The rhetoric of fragmentation: fear and faith in international law. Leiden J Int Law 22:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxeiner J (2008) Some realism about legal certainty in the globalization of the rule of law. Houst J Int Law 31:27–46

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney-Lankford S (2012) Fragmentation of international law redux: the case of Strasbourg. Oxf J Leg Stud 32:609–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megiddo T (2019) Beyond fragmentation: on international law’s integrationist forces. Yale J Int Law 44:115–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon S (2014) The somewhat uncommon law of commerce. Singap Acad Law J 26:23–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon S (2019) The settlement of international commercial disputes: alternative dispute resolution, commercial courts, and the converge of commercial laws. Speech at the National Judges College, Beijing 29 August 2019. https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/speech/cj-39-s-speech-for-national-judges-college-beijing.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Michaels R, Pauwelyn J (2012) Conflict of norms or conflict of laws? Different techniques in the fragmentation of public international law. Duke J Comp Int Law 22:349–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Monateri P (2017) Comparative contract law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder J (2018) Unity and diversity in the European Union’s internal market case law: towards unity in ‘good governance’? Utrecht J Int Eur Law 34:4–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton P (2018) China’s Belt and Road Initiative: challenges for arbitration in Asia. Univ Pa Asian Law Rev 13:72–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Leading Group for Promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (2019) The Belt and Road Initiative progress, contributions and prospects, official (5-year) report. https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/zchj/qwfb/86739.htm. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Ott G (2001) China’s accession into the WTO: the practice of international bribery and the issues it presents for American counsel whose clients are doing business within the confines of the Great Wall. Temp Int Comp Law J 15:147–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2004) Bridging fragmentation and unity: international law as a universe of inter-connected islands. Mich J Int Law 25:903–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng S (2000) The WTO legalistic approach and East Asia: from the legal culture perspective. Asia-Pac Law Pol J 1:78–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Perillo J (1994) Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: the black letter text and a review. Fordham Law Rev 63:281–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E (2020) International settlement of trade and investment disputes over Chinese ‘Silk Road projects’ inside the European Union. European University Institute Working Papers, February 2020. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/66869/LAW_2020_02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Ping CK (2017) Judicial cooperation a first for Singapore, China. The Straits Times, 22 August 2017. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/judicial-cooperation-a-first-for-singapore-china. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Platsas A (2009) The idea of legal convergence and international economic law. Int J Priv Law 2:385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popa L (2018) Does proliferation of international judicial bodies lead to the fragmentation of international law? In: Popa LE (ed) Patterns of treaty interpretation as anti-fragmentation tools. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 15–78

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Portland (2018) Commercial courts report. https://portland-communications.com/pdf/Portland-commercial-courts-report-2018.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Prost M, Clark P (2006) Unity, diversity and the fragmentation of international law: how much does the multiplication of international organizations really matter? Chin J Int Law 5:341–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig S (2014) International regime complexity and economic law enforcement. J Int Econ Law 17:491–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian X (2021) The legal legitimacy of the China International Commercial Court history geopolitics and law. Asia Pac Law Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2020.1856310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao P (2004) Multiple international judicial forums: a reflection of the growing strength of international law or its fragmentation? Mich J Int Law 25:929–962

    Google Scholar 

  • Requejo M (2019) International commercial courts in the litigation market. MPILux Research Paper 2019 (2). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3327166. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Roberts A (2021) Introduction to the Symposium on global labs of international commercial dispute resolution. Am J Int Law Unbound 115:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel DR, Berger B (2019) Navigating the Belt and Road Initiative. A report of the Asia Society Policy Institute. https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Navigating%20the%20Belt%20and%20Road%20Initiative_0.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Sauvé P (2019) To fuse, not to fuse, or simply confuse? Assessing the case for normative convergence between goods and services trade law. J Int Econ Law 22:355–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severino R, Thuzar M (2018) ASEAN Economic cooperation and its political realities. Moving the AEC beyond 2015. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute Singapore, Singapore, pp 24–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Song J (2018) Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China: challenges and developments. 30 August 2018. http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/199/203/1048.html. Accessed 27 Jan 2021

  • Srivastava A (2020) International unification of trade laws. In: Srivastava A (ed) Modern law of international trade. Comparative export trade and international harmonization. Springer, Singapore, pp 23–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart D (2019) The Hague Conference adopts a new convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. Am J Int Law 113:772–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang K (2017) Chinese bilateral judgement enforcement treaties. Loyola Los Angel Int Comp Law Rev 40:1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang K (2018) Enforcement of foreign commercial Judgements in China. J Priv Int Law 14:262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidigal G (2019) Living without the appellate body: multilateral, bilateral and plurilateral solutions to the WTO dispute settlement crisis. J World Invest Trade 6:862–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vines D (2018) The BRI and RCEP: ensuring cooperation in the liberalisation of trade in Asia. Econ Political Stud 6:338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang G (2017a) The Belt and Road Initiative in quest for a dispute resolution mechanism. Asia Pac Law Rev 25:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H (2017b) The RCEP and its investment rules: learning from past Chinese FTAs. Chin J Glob Gov 3:160–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H (2019a) China’s approach to the Belt and Road Initiative: scope, character and sustainability. J Int Econ Law 22:29–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H (2019b) The future of deep free trade agreements: the convergence of TPP (and CPTPP) and CETA? J World Trade 53:317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Chen J (2019) Will the establishment of circuit tribunals break up the circular reforms in the Chinese judiciary? Asian J Comp Law 14:91–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Zhao J (2019) China’s Belt and Road Initiative and building the community of common destiny. World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd., Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Li Y (2020) The negotiation of EU–China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment and its potential impact in the post-pandemic era. J Chin Econ Bus Stud 18:365–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters J (2017) ‘Unimpeded trade’ in Central Asia—a trade facilitation challenge. Transnatl Disput Manag 3:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2017) The internal market as a legal concept. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werner W, de Hoon M, Galán A (2017) The law of international lawyers: reading Martti Koskenniemi. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xiaoyu F (2021) Agree or agree to disagree: China–EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) negotiation and the ISDS reform. Chin J Comp Law 8:635–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu A (2018) China cases insight no. 3: Belt & Road typical case 13: towards a liberal interpretation of the reciprocity principle for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (29 June 2018). https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/clc-1-201806-insights-3-alison-xu/. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

  • Yin W (2018) Challenges, issues in China–EU investment agreement and the implication on China’s domestic reform. Asia Pac Law Rev 26(2):170–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu Y (2021) China’s implementation of its ‘one belt one road’ initiative: legal challenges and regulation by law. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 16:121–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S (2020) China’s International Commercial Court: background, obstacles and the road ahead. J Int Disput Settl 11:150–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhiwei L (2017) Belt and Road a turning point for arbitration in China? 7th Greater China Arbitration Forum, Beijing, October 2017. https://www.vantageasia.com/belt-road-turning-point-arbitration-china/. Accessed 27 Jun 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article benefited greatly from the insights provided by colleagues at the Milan Arbitration Week (February 2021) and the conference ‘EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment in Context’ (March 2021) organised by the Asia Pacific FDI Network (APFN), Queen Mary School of Law, and EU Plant Program. Special thanks are also owed to Tulio Treves, Federica Bocci, Mitsuo Matsushita, Xu Qian, Sathvik Chandrashekar, and Ashuthosh Vinod who provided invaluable feedback on the draft article. We also thank the Netherlands International Law Review editors and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julien Chaisse.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaisse, J., Kirkwood, J. Adjudicating Disputes Along China’s New Silk Road: Towards Unity, Diversity or Fragmentation of International Law?. Neth Int Law Rev 68, 219–247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00199-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00199-2

Keywords

Navigation