China-European Union Investment Relationships
Show Less

China-European Union Investment Relationships

Towards a New Leadership in Global Investment Governance?

Edited by Julien Chaisse

Based on original research, and bringing together expert contributors, this book provides a critical analysis of the current law and policy between the EU and China, both internally and internationally. Covering key topics on the subject, this book draws together diverse perspectives into a single collection, and is an invaluable tool for both scholars and practitioners of trade and investment law, as well as human rights and environmental law and policy.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 14: The inclusion of investment court system into the EU-China BIT: innovations, prospects and problems

Chi-Chung Kao

Abstract

The ICS is intended to improve ISDS with its procedural innovations. But the rules concerning the unilateral appointment of arbitrators by the states are problematic. The presumption that an investor-appointed arbitrator is biased in favour of the appointing investor is proven by empirical statistics as untrue; the allegation that party-appointed commercial arbitrators are not capable of handling claims involving public interest is equally unfounded. In addition, actual cases have demonstrated that the integrity of the arbitral proceedings can be effectively upheld by the challenge mechanism, under which a potentially partial or biased arbitrator can be removed. The deprivation of the investor's right to appoint arbitrator is a disproportionate measure in this regard. Finally, investors might lose their confidence in arbitration if arbitrators are pre-installed by the states. Investors might feel unwilling to have recourse to arbitration and turn to their home state for intervention instead. This could cause a setback in the depoliticization of ISDS. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the conventional approach of parties appointing arbitrators. The ICS's rules in this regard jeopardize, rather than improve ISDS. If the EU-China BIA does incorporate the ICS, it would be better if the ICS is modified so the disputing parties retain their right to appoint arbitrators.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.