Paradigm shift; the emergence of arbitral forum shopping in CPEC investment disputes

Rao Qasim Idrees, R. Shapiee, Haniff Ahamat
{"title":"Paradigm shift; the emergence of arbitral forum shopping in CPEC investment disputes","authors":"Rao Qasim Idrees, R. Shapiee, Haniff Ahamat","doi":"10.1108/jitlp-05-2019-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The phenomena of arbitral forum shopping to resolve a commercial investment dispute is still under development and more complicated in many states. However, for Pakistan, it seems in an evolutionary phase, where the country is struggling hard to adopt the best practice of dispute resolution through forum shopping clauses. This struggle is even more inflated with huge Chinese investment through China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) projects in Pakistan, which come alongside with commercial investment disputes. For this purpose, the current treaty or contract-based system between China and Pakistan and litigation based domestic civil court structure look obsolete, hence, appear to require reinstatement of forum shopping clauses under concerned treaties or contracts for CPEC investment-related issues.,The authors choose a legal research method. The research design is a comparative analysis between CPEC contracts and dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan and also the domestic civil court’s litigation system. This analysis selected by the authors due to inefficient bilateral investment arrangements and efficient resolution of future commercial disputes in CPEC. While the international arbitration system is included in the assessment were particular in the time and space context. The comparison comprises on dispute resolution clauses in free trade agreement (FTA) and bilateral investment treaties (BIT) between China and Pakistan and the system of resolving disputes by CPEC clauses.,The authors finds that in the absence of CPEC forum shopping clause under dispute resolution system, Pakistan is highly at risk to lose foreign investors, and therefore, set back the goal of long term economic sustainability in the region. However, China has already made its investment policies safer with establishing three international commercial courts (also referred to as Belt and Road courts), one in Xi’an for the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt, one in Shenzhen for the Maritime Silk Road and one in Beijing that will serve as the headquarters. These courts will be offering litigation, arbitration and mediation services. According to one view, China aims to have all belt and road initiative (BRI) disputes resolved by these courts. This makes Pakistan position more awkward and needs proactive measures, as CPEC investment is based on Pakistan foreign direct investment policies and legal structure. Therefore, it will be complicated and less favourable for Pakistan to deal with such cases under Chinese Courts.,The paper’s primary contribution is finding that comprehensive analysis of alternative dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan over CPEC investment is inevitable. A socio-legal research combine with an examination of Singapore International Commercial Court functions and mechanism and CPEC plans further contributes to ascertain the best model of the settlement of commercial disputes under investments in Pakistan. This research paper anticipates future economic and legal problems, which Pakistan may encounter.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jitlp-05-2019-0022","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jitlp-05-2019-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The phenomena of arbitral forum shopping to resolve a commercial investment dispute is still under development and more complicated in many states. However, for Pakistan, it seems in an evolutionary phase, where the country is struggling hard to adopt the best practice of dispute resolution through forum shopping clauses. This struggle is even more inflated with huge Chinese investment through China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) projects in Pakistan, which come alongside with commercial investment disputes. For this purpose, the current treaty or contract-based system between China and Pakistan and litigation based domestic civil court structure look obsolete, hence, appear to require reinstatement of forum shopping clauses under concerned treaties or contracts for CPEC investment-related issues.,The authors choose a legal research method. The research design is a comparative analysis between CPEC contracts and dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan and also the domestic civil court’s litigation system. This analysis selected by the authors due to inefficient bilateral investment arrangements and efficient resolution of future commercial disputes in CPEC. While the international arbitration system is included in the assessment were particular in the time and space context. The comparison comprises on dispute resolution clauses in free trade agreement (FTA) and bilateral investment treaties (BIT) between China and Pakistan and the system of resolving disputes by CPEC clauses.,The authors finds that in the absence of CPEC forum shopping clause under dispute resolution system, Pakistan is highly at risk to lose foreign investors, and therefore, set back the goal of long term economic sustainability in the region. However, China has already made its investment policies safer with establishing three international commercial courts (also referred to as Belt and Road courts), one in Xi’an for the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt, one in Shenzhen for the Maritime Silk Road and one in Beijing that will serve as the headquarters. These courts will be offering litigation, arbitration and mediation services. According to one view, China aims to have all belt and road initiative (BRI) disputes resolved by these courts. This makes Pakistan position more awkward and needs proactive measures, as CPEC investment is based on Pakistan foreign direct investment policies and legal structure. Therefore, it will be complicated and less favourable for Pakistan to deal with such cases under Chinese Courts.,The paper’s primary contribution is finding that comprehensive analysis of alternative dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan over CPEC investment is inevitable. A socio-legal research combine with an examination of Singapore International Commercial Court functions and mechanism and CPEC plans further contributes to ascertain the best model of the settlement of commercial disputes under investments in Pakistan. This research paper anticipates future economic and legal problems, which Pakistan may encounter.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
范式转变;在中巴经济走廊投资纠纷中出现的仲裁论坛购物现象
商事投资纠纷的仲裁选择现象在许多国家仍处于发展阶段,且较为复杂。然而,对于巴基斯坦来说,它似乎处于一个进化阶段,该国正在努力采用通过论坛购物条款解决争端的最佳做法。随着中国通过中巴经济走廊(CPEC)项目在巴基斯坦进行的巨额投资,伴随着商业投资纠纷,这种斗争更加膨胀。为此,中国和巴基斯坦之间目前基于条约或合同的制度以及基于诉讼的国内民事法院结构看起来已经过时,因此,似乎需要在中巴经济走廊投资相关问题的相关条约或合同下恢复论坛购买条款。作者选择了法律研究方法。本研究设计是对中巴经济走廊合同和争议解决机制以及国内民事法院诉讼制度进行比较分析。作者之所以选择这一分析,是因为中巴经济走廊的双边投资安排效率低下,未来商业纠纷的解决效率低下。虽然国际仲裁制度是在评估中纳入的,但在时间和空间方面是特别的。比较包括中巴自由贸易协定和双边投资协定中的争端解决条款和中巴经济走廊条款解决争端的制度。研究发现,在中巴经济走廊争议解决机制下缺乏论坛购物条款的情况下,巴基斯坦极有可能失去外国投资者,从而阻碍了该地区长期经济可持续发展的目标。然而,中国已经通过建立三个国际商事法庭(也被称为“一带一路”法院)使其投资政策更加安全,一个在西安为陆上丝绸之路经济带,一个在深圳为海上丝绸之路,一个在北京作为总部。这些法院将提供诉讼、仲裁和调解服务。根据一种观点,中国的目标是让所有“一带一路”倡议(BRI)争议都由这些法院解决。这使得巴基斯坦的处境更加尴尬,需要采取积极措施,因为中巴经济走廊的投资是基于巴基斯坦的外国直接投资政策和法律结构。因此,巴基斯坦在中国法院处理此类案件将变得复杂和不利。本文的主要贡献在于发现,对中巴两国在中巴经济走廊投资问题上的替代性争端解决机制进行全面分析是不可避免的。社会法律研究结合对新加坡国际商事法庭职能和机制以及中巴经济走廊计划的审查,进一步有助于确定解决巴基斯坦投资下商业纠纷的最佳模式。这篇研究论文预测了巴基斯坦未来可能遇到的经济和法律问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Trade Law and Policy is a peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal with a focus upon the nexus of international economic policy and international economic law. It is receptive, but not limited, to the methods of economics, law, and the social sciences. As scholars tend to read individual articles of particular interest to them, rather than an entire issue, authors are not required to write with full accessibility to readers from all disciplines within the purview of the Journal. However, interdisciplinary communication should be fostered where possible. Thus economists can utilize quantitative methods (including econometrics and statistics), while legal scholars and political scientists can invoke specialized techniques and theories. Appendices are encouraged for more technical material. Submissions should contribute to understanding international economic policy and the institutional/legal architecture in which it is implemented. Submissions can be conceptual (theoretical) and/or empirical and/or doctrinal in content. Topics of interest to the Journal are expected to evolve over time but include: -All aspects of international trade law and policy -All aspects of international investment law and policy -All aspects of international development law and policy -All aspects of international financial law and policy -Relationship between economic policy and law and other societal concerns, including the human rights, environment, health, development, and national security
期刊最新文献
Cyberspace as a fifth dimension of national security: trade measure exceptions The African continental free trade area: the road ahead for the continent’s bold integration project Legality of export restrictions imposed during COVID-19 in international economic law Indonesia’s nickel export restriction policy: alternative on environmental approach for Article XI:1 GATT justification How “safe” is the WTO “safe haven”? A need to modernise disciplines for officially supported export credits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1