Dimensions of the New Belt & Road International Order: An Analysis of the Emerging Legal Norms and a Conceptionalisation of the Regulation of Disputes
- 1 Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS), Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Abstract
China’s “Belt & Road” initiative ( “BRI” ) has the potential to redefine international trade governance and the laws that establish its order. As a result, new international legal norms are emerging that are characteristically “Eastern”. With a new international trade and investment order will come disputes over its interpretation. However, current dispute resolution mechanisms, including Investor State Dispute Settlement ( “ISDS” ), may not be efficient in resolving disagreements between the BRI’s participating states, or investors therein. In order to overcome this practical challenge, this paper examines some important legal aspects of the BRI and offers a new concept of dispute regulation in general. As such, it firstly introduces the BRI as well as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and explores their relationship. Secondly, it tackles selective legal aspects, norms and questions that are emerging as a result of the BRI. For the central argument, four traditional dispute resolution mechanisms are analyzed to inform a new BRI paradigm. This is supported by the special nature of the BRI, and the unique characteristics of countries participating in it. The paper is intended to begin a discussion of some emerging trends in international trade and the rules that relate to it, in the context of the BRI.
- Asian Development Bank (2010). Estimating Demand for Infrastructure in Energy, Transport, Telecommunications, Water and Sanitation in Asia and the Pacific: 2010-2020.
- Dahlan, M. R. (Forthcoming). Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Re-conceptionalized: Regulation of Disputes, Standards, and Mediation. Pepperdine (Forthcoming).
- Faculty of Law, Oxford University (2017). One Belt One Road Summit: A Challenge for International Coordination and Cooperation.
- Hamermesh, L. A. (2006). The Policy Foundations of Delaware Corporate Law. Columbia Law Review, 106, 1749.
- Han, X. L., & Zhai, Y. M. (2017). Investor-State Arbitration Mechanism in Sino-Foreign Investment Agreement under the “Belt and Road” Initiative. Chinese Review of International Law, 5, 32.
- Huang, J. (2016). Silk Road Economic Belt: Can Old BITs Fulfill China’s New Initiative? Journal of World Trade, 50, 746-750.
- Huang, Y. (2017). Why China Invests More in Europe than in the US: Political Sensitivities, Security Concerns and Industrial Structure Direct the Flow. Financial Times.
- Kratz, A., & Stanzel, A. (2016). China’s Investment in Influence: The Future of 16+1 Cooperation. European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
- Lu, Y. (2017). The Establishment of “Belt and Road” International Investment Disputes Settlement Institution. Chinese Review of International Law, 4, 89-96.
- Maçães, B. (2016). New Western Frontier, Conquered by China: A 21st Century Silk Road Takes Shape on Kazakh Border, to Russia’s Consternation and beyond EU’s Imagination. POLITICO.
- Onishi, N., & Moyo, J. (2017). Robert Mugabe Resigns as Zimbabwe’s President, Ending 37-Year Rule. The New York Times.
- Queen Mary, University of London and White & Case (2015). 2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration (p. 2).
- UNCTAD (2017). World Investment Report 2017: Investment and the Digital Economy (p. 115).
- Wang, G. G. (2017). The Belt and Road Initiative in Quest for a Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Asia Pacific Law Review, 25, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2017.1321731
- Watt, N., Lewis, P., & Branigan, T. (2015). US Anger at Britain Joining Chinese-Led Investment Bank AIIB. The Guardian.