English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The majority of investment arbitration cases based on Chinese BITs have involved restrictive ISDS clauses, the interpretation of such clauses diverged in arbitration practice. Given the large presence of the restrictive ISDS clauses in Chinese BITs, it will certainly impede Chinese investors to seek jurisdiction of international investment arbitration. In the meantime, the interpretation of such clauses by tribunals will continue to occur frequently, which is an uncertain factor for both the Chinese government and its overseas investors. As China’s dual role in two-way investment, China needs to consider the protection of both the host state and its investors. To deal with the challenges from the predominance of the restrictive ISDS clauses in Chinese BITs, China seems to be updating its restrictive BITs from a multilateral level, and the Chinese investors may circumvent the restrictive BITs by relying on investment contracts or host state’s national laws to seek international arbitration.

Restrictive ISDS clauses under Chinese BITs: interpretations and implications for China