{"title":"Reforming Investment Protection: A Comparative Analysis of the EU and China","authors":"Noah A. Barr","doi":"10.54648/eerr2022025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a comparative analysis of the European Union’s (EU’s) and China’s approaches to international investment law reform. While the EU has been referred to as a ‘systemic reformer’, which promotes significant institutional reform, China’s emerging model of investment protection remains unclassified. In the first part, this article describes the progressive emergence of China’s investment law regime. It argues that the Chinese model of investment protection may be viewed as an outright tool of foreign economic policy. Accordingly, China’s reform’s approach is a middle ground between systemic and incremental reforms. By contrast, due to its democratic nature, the EU has adopted a value-driven model. In this respect, this article posits that the political science scholarship on democracy may shed a different light on the EU’s institutional approach, and thus enrich the debate on investment law reform. The second part analyses the proposed Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (Proposed CAI) between the EU and China, which has been signed but not ratified. After showing that convergence was achieved on substantive protection, it argues that democratic imperatives explain the EU’s preference for a court system. Nevertheless, non-democracies often do not face the same incentives, which may generate disagreements regarding the dispute settlement design for investment claims.\nEuropean Union, China, CAI, international investment law, democracy, dispute settlement","PeriodicalId":84710,"journal":{"name":"European foreign affairs review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European foreign affairs review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article provides a comparative analysis of the European Union’s (EU’s) and China’s approaches to international investment law reform. While the EU has been referred to as a ‘systemic reformer’, which promotes significant institutional reform, China’s emerging model of investment protection remains unclassified. In the first part, this article describes the progressive emergence of China’s investment law regime. It argues that the Chinese model of investment protection may be viewed as an outright tool of foreign economic policy. Accordingly, China’s reform’s approach is a middle ground between systemic and incremental reforms. By contrast, due to its democratic nature, the EU has adopted a value-driven model. In this respect, this article posits that the political science scholarship on democracy may shed a different light on the EU’s institutional approach, and thus enrich the debate on investment law reform. The second part analyses the proposed Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (Proposed CAI) between the EU and China, which has been signed but not ratified. After showing that convergence was achieved on substantive protection, it argues that democratic imperatives explain the EU’s preference for a court system. Nevertheless, non-democracies often do not face the same incentives, which may generate disagreements regarding the dispute settlement design for investment claims.
European Union, China, CAI, international investment law, democracy, dispute settlement
本文对欧盟和中国在国际投资法改革方面的做法进行了比较分析。虽然欧盟被称为“系统改革者”,推动了重大的制度改革,但中国新兴的投资保护模式仍未被分类。在第一部分中,本文描述了中国投资法制度的逐步形成。它认为,中国的投资保护模式可能被视为对外经济政策的一种直接工具。因此,中国的改革方式是在系统改革和渐进式改革之间的中间地带。相比之下,由于其民主性质,欧盟采取了一种价值驱动的模式。在这方面,本文认为,关于民主的政治科学研究可能会为欧盟的制度方法提供不同的视角,从而丰富关于投资法改革的辩论。第二部分分析了欧盟与中国之间已签署但尚未批准的全面投资协定(Comprehensive Agreement on Investment,简称CAI)。在证明了在实质性保护上的趋同之后,它认为民主的必要性解释了欧盟对法院系统的偏好。然而,非民主国家往往没有同样的激励,这可能会在投资索赔的争端解决设计方面产生分歧。欧盟,中国,CAI,国际投资法,民主,争端解决