Abstract
The One Belt One Road (OBOR) plan is a top-level developmental project primarily designed to enhance infrastructure output and investment cooperation. OBOR participating countries represent more than one third of the global GDP. It has a far-reaching impact on transnational trade and investment. The said project has been intended to promote capital flows, trade connections, investment infrastructure, and extended coordination among member states. The OBOR is also giving birth to numerous disputes among the investors and host states, consequently requiring an efficient system for dispute resolution. Therefore, a well-organized system for dispute resolution has become vital for the success of the initiative. The OBOR development is going to bring a revolution in dispute settlement system which is necessary to settle disputes arising out of it. This chapter discusses the OBOR as an agent of revolution in international dispute resolution specifically in the area of Investor-v-State disputes. It points out the existing arrangements for dispute resolution and the way forward.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Casas-Klett and Li (2022).
- 2.
See The Economic Times (2017).
- 3.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC (2015).
- 4.
Holloway (2020).
- 5.
Chaisse and Matsushita (2018).
- 6.
Du (2016).
- 7.
Wolff (2018).
- 8.
Bath (2016).
- 9.
Smillie (2018).
- 10.
- 11.
Shan et al. (2021).
- 12.
Hindelang (2016).
- 13.
Hua (2017).
- 14.
Yee (2018).
- 15.
Lianbin (2014).
- 16.
Wang (2017).
- 17.
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) (2015).
- 18.
Lu (2018).
- 19.
Chaziza (2018).
- 20.
Liqin (2018).
- 21.
Supreme People’s Court Network (2018).
- 22.
Mollengarden (2019).
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Supreme People’s Court Network, op. cit. 21.
- 25.
Jue Jun Lu, op. cit. 18.
- 26.
Mollengarden, op. cit. 22.
- 27.
Supreme People’s Court Network, op. cit. 21, Article 12.
- 28.
Ibid.
- 29.
Ibid.
- 30.
Sands et al. (1999).
- 31.
Petersman (2006).
- 32.
Hu and Huang (2018).
- 33.
Some countries along the Belt and Road are not contracting party of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
- 34.
Wang, op. cit. 16.
- 35.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010).
- 36.
For example, in the US Gambling case, the complainant was authorized to retaliate but had to abandon retaliatory measures because the United States could punish it in other international organizations or economic cooperation forums. See also Wang (2011).
- 37.
For example, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria are not member states of the WTO.
- 38.
Yannaca-Small (2006).
- 39.
Dimitrijević and Jokanović (2016).
- 40.
Chaisse and Matsushita (2018).
- 41.
Wang, op. cit. 16.
- 42.
The guidelines were passed during a meeting of the Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform of the 19th Communist Party of China Central Committee.
- 43.
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (2022).
- 44.
- 45.
Article 54(2) of China-Pak FTA 2006.
- 46.
Hu, Huang, op. cit. 32.
- 47.
Ellis (2018).
- 48.
Dahlan (2020).
- 49.
Lai (2021).
- 50.
Zhu (2019).
- 51.
Yong and Daiwei (2007).
- 52.
Leung (2018).
- 53.
Chaisse and Kirkwood (2021).
- 54.
Connor (2017).
- 55.
Stipanowich et al (2004).
- 56.
Moore (2014).
- 57.
Enderwick (2018).
- 58.
Dahlan (2018).
- 59.
Li and Bian (2020).
- 60.
Hu (2019).
- 61.
Baldwin (2011).
- 62.
Lewis and Moise (2018).
- 63.
Dahlan (2018).
References
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) (2015) Articles of agreement, Article 55. https://www.aiib.org/en/about-aiib/basic-documents/articles-of-agreement/index.html
Baldwin RE (2011) twenty-first-century regionalism: filling the gap between 21st century trade and 20th century trade rules. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1869845
Bath V (2016) “One Belt, One Road” and Chinese investment. In: Wolff L (eds) Legal dimensions of China’s belt and road initiative. Wolters Kluwer
Casas-Klett T, Li J (2022) Assessing the belt and road initiative as a narrative: implications for institutional change and international firm strategy. Asia Pac J Manag 39:857–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10490-021-09757-X
Chaisse J, Matsushita M (2018) China “Belt and Road” initiative: mapping the world trade normative and strategic implications. J World Trade 52:163–185. https://doi.org/10.54648/TRAD2018008
Chaisse J, Kirkwood J (2021) Adjudicating disputes along China’s new silk road: towards unity, diversity or fragmentation of international law? Netherlands Int Law Rev 68:219–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40802-021-00199-2
Chaziza M (2018) China’s approach to mediation in the middle east: between conflict resolution and conflict management. Middle East Institute. https://www.mei.edu/publications/chinas-approach-mediation-middle-east-between-conflict-resolution-and-conflict
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (2022) http://www.cietac.org/?l=en
Connor V (2017) The immunity of Chinese state-owned enterprises in Hong Kong and along the belt and road. Asian Dispute Rev 19:166–171
Dahlan MR (2018) Dimensions of the new belt & road international order: an analysis of the emerging legal norms and a conceptualization of the regulation of disputes. Beijing Law Rev 9:720–726. https://doi.org/10.4236/BLR.2018.91007
Dahlan MR (2020) Envisioning foundations for the law of the belt and road initiative: rule of law and dispute resolution challenges. Harv Int Law J 62:Essay
Dimitrijević D, Jokanović N (2016) China’s ‘New Silk Road’ development strategy. Sci Republic of Serbia 67:21–44
Du MM (2016) China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative: context, focus, institutions, and implications. Chinese J Glob Governance 2:30–43. https://doi.org/10.1163/23525207-12340014
Ellis CD (2018) China branching out-China’s new belt and road trade dispute mechanism. AHK Greater China. https://china.ahk.de/membership/chamber-publications/german-chamber-ticker/archive
Enderwick P (2018) The economic growth and development effects of China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative. Strateg Chang 27:447–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/JSC.2229
Hindelang S (2016) Study on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and alternatives to dispute resolution in international investment Law. Transnat Dispute Manag 13:1–92
Holloway D (2020) The New Chinese international commercial court and the future of dispute resolution in the belt and road initiative. In: Chen L, Janssen A (eds) The New Chinese international commercial court and the future of dispute resolution in the belt and road initiative. Springer, pp 51–80
Hu R (2019) Treaties on the international trade dispute settlement and the China" Belt and Road" initiative. Beijing Law Rev 10:441
Hu J, Huang JJ (2018) Dispute resolution mechanisms and organizations in the implementation of “One Belt, One Road” initiative: whence and whither. J World Trade 52:815–838. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3297768
Hua Y (2017) China’s legal obligations in the field of foreign investment: how trade agreements influence the formation of investment agreements? European University Institute PhD theses, Department of Law
Lai JL (2021) A tale of two treaties: a study of NAFTA and the USMCA’s investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Emory Int Law Rev 35(2):259–296
Leung CTL (2018) Conflict management under international and cross-cultural contexts: Opportunities in the belt and road. In: Islam MN (ed) Silk road to belt road: reinventing the past and shaping the future. pp 147–158.
Lewis DJ, Moise D (2018) One belt one road (“OBOR”) roadmaps: the legal and policy frameworks. In: Chaisse J, Chaisse J (eds) The belt and road initiative. Brill Nijhoff, pp 17–58
Li Y, Bian C (2020) China’s stance on investor-state dispute settlement: evolution, challenges, and reform options. Netherlands Int Law Rev 67:503–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40802-020-00182-3/TABLES/5
Lianbin S (2014) Commercial dispute resolution in china: an annual review and preview. Beijing Arbitration Commission, Queen Mary University of London Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. http://www.bjac.org.cn/attached/file/20160217/2014.pdf
Liqin G (2018) China to set up new international commercial courts in Beijing, Xi’an and Shenzhen. https://perma.cc/7C2U-43UG. Available only in Chinese
Lu JJ (2018) Dispute resolution along the Belt and Road: what does the future hold? In: Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/dispute-resolution-along-the-belt-and-road-what-does-the-future-hold
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC (2015) Vision and actions on jointly building silk road economic belt and 21st-Century maritime silk road. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics_665678/2015zt/xjpcxbayzlt2015nnh/201503/t20150328_705553.html
Mollengarden Z (2019) “One-Stop” dispute resolution on the belt and road: toward an international commercial court with Chinese characteristics. UCLA Pacific Basin Law J 36(1):65–111. https://doi.org/10.5070/P8361042636
Moore CW (2014) The mediation process: practical strategies for resolving conflict, 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons
Mukhtar H (2018a) China’s free trade agreements under negotiations. China and WTO Review 4(1):167–173
Mukhtar H (2018b) Undergoing re-negotiations between Pakistan and China for free trade agreement. China and WTO Rev 4(2):363–368
Petersman E-U (2006) Justice as conflict resolution: proliferation, fragmentation, and decentralization of dispute settlement in international trade. University of Pennsylvania J Int Law 27:273
Sands P, Mackenzie R, Shany Y (1999) Manual on international courts and tribunals. Butterworths
Shan W, Sheng Z, Jinyuan S (eds) (2021) China and international dispute resolution in the context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’. Cambridge University Press
Smillie D (2018) Regional trade agreements. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/brief/regional-trade-agreements
Stipanowich TJ, Bleemer R, Erickson H et al (2004) ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: the growth and impact of “Alternative Dispute Resolution.” J Empir Leg Stud 1:843–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1740-1461.2004.00025.X
Supreme People’s Court Network (2018) Provisions of the supreme people’s court on several issues regarding the establishment of the international commercial court. China International Commercial Court. https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/817.html
The Economic Times (2017) China to invest $800 billion in Belt and Road initiative over next five years. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/58656367.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Wang G (2017) The belt and road Initiative in quest for a dispute resolution mechanism. Asia Pacific Law Rev 25:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2017.1321731
Wang G (2011) Radiating impact of WTO on its members’ legal system: the Chinese perspective. Brill Nijhoff
Wolff P (2018) China’s ‘Belt and road’ initiative—challenges and opportunities. German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). https://www.idos-research.de/uploads/media/Belt_and_Road_V1.pdf
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010) Settling disputes. In: Understanding the WTO. WTO, pp 1–110
Yannaca-Small K (2006) Improving the system of investor-state dispute settlement. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2006/01. https://www.oecd.org/china/WP-2006_1.pdf
Yee S (2018) Dispute settlement on the belt and road: ideas on system, spirit and style. Chinese J Int Law 17:907–914. https://doi.org/10.1093/CHINESEJIL/JMY024
Yong L, Daiwei Z (2007) The developments of ISDS mechanism initiated by the EU investment court system and China’s choice. Indian J Int Econ Law 11:127–165
Zhu W (2019) Establishment of a belt and road dispute settlement mechanism. China WTO Rev 2019:89–110. https://doi.org/10.14330/cwr.2019.5.1.04
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mukhtar, H., Saleem, H.A.R. (2023). OBOR as an Agent of Revolution in International Dispute Resolution. In: Lee, E.Y.J. (eds) Revolutionary Approach to International Law. International Law in Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7967-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7967-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7966-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7967-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)