“一带一路”争端的地缘经济学——以中巴经济走廊为例

M. Mclaughlin
{"title":"“一带一路”争端的地缘经济学——以中巴经济走廊为例","authors":"M. Mclaughlin","doi":"10.1017/s2044251323000176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article argues that the dovetailing economic, geopolitical, and security interests that underpin the Belt and Road Initiative demands a dispute resolution mechanism that focuses on broader interests and legal rights. Using the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a case study, it identifies the conditions in which Chinese investors could have initiated an investment arbitration but did not. This can be explained by the rights-based orientation of investment treaties failing to reflect the interests of multi-project initiatives. Instead, alternative methods of home state intervention, such as state-funded political risk insurance, are used to protect investors. In other words, the political economy of CPEC investments refuses to utilize hard law mechanisms. Given this context, mediation may be a viable alternative. These circumstances accelerate the trend towards “de-legalization”, which is often cited as an inevitable consequence of the emerging “geoeconomic order” but suggests that reasons other than national security are the cause.","PeriodicalId":43342,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Geoeconomics of Belt and Road Disputes: A Case Study on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor\",\"authors\":\"M. Mclaughlin\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s2044251323000176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article argues that the dovetailing economic, geopolitical, and security interests that underpin the Belt and Road Initiative demands a dispute resolution mechanism that focuses on broader interests and legal rights. Using the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a case study, it identifies the conditions in which Chinese investors could have initiated an investment arbitration but did not. This can be explained by the rights-based orientation of investment treaties failing to reflect the interests of multi-project initiatives. Instead, alternative methods of home state intervention, such as state-funded political risk insurance, are used to protect investors. In other words, the political economy of CPEC investments refuses to utilize hard law mechanisms. Given this context, mediation may be a viable alternative. These circumstances accelerate the trend towards “de-legalization”, which is often cited as an inevitable consequence of the emerging “geoeconomic order” but suggests that reasons other than national security are the cause.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251323000176\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251323000176","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

摘要

本文认为,支撑“一带一路”倡议的相互关联的经济、地缘政治和安全利益要求建立一个关注更广泛利益和合法权利的争端解决机制。该报告以中巴经济走廊(CPEC)为例,指出了中国投资者本可以提起投资仲裁但却没有提起的条件。这可以解释为投资条约的权利导向未能反映多项目倡议的利益。取而代之的是,国家干预的替代方法,如国家资助的政治风险保险,被用来保护投资者。换句话说,中巴经济走廊投资的政治经济学拒绝使用硬法律机制。在这种情况下,中介可能是一个可行的替代方案。这些情况加速了“去合法化”的趋势,这通常被认为是正在形成的“地缘经济秩序”的必然结果,但似乎国家安全以外的原因是原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Geoeconomics of Belt and Road Disputes: A Case Study on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
This article argues that the dovetailing economic, geopolitical, and security interests that underpin the Belt and Road Initiative demands a dispute resolution mechanism that focuses on broader interests and legal rights. Using the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a case study, it identifies the conditions in which Chinese investors could have initiated an investment arbitration but did not. This can be explained by the rights-based orientation of investment treaties failing to reflect the interests of multi-project initiatives. Instead, alternative methods of home state intervention, such as state-funded political risk insurance, are used to protect investors. In other words, the political economy of CPEC investments refuses to utilize hard law mechanisms. Given this context, mediation may be a viable alternative. These circumstances accelerate the trend towards “de-legalization”, which is often cited as an inevitable consequence of the emerging “geoeconomic order” but suggests that reasons other than national security are the cause.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
C.H. Alexandrowicz's India and the Kautilyan Moment Annotated Leading Trademark Cases in Major Asian Jurisdictions edited by Kung-Chung LIU. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. xii + 456 pp. Hardcover: £150.00; Softcover: £38.99; VitalSource eBook: £38.99 doi: 10.4324/9780429316395 In Fairness to Nottebohm: Nationality in an Age of Globalization Collective Self-Defence in International Law by James A. GREEN. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2024. xx + 366 pp. Hardback: USD$135.00. doi: 10.1017/9781009406420 Feminist Jurisography Law, History, Writing by Ann GENOVESE. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2023. ix+142 pp. Hardcover: £120.00/AUD$252.00; Softcover: £34.99/AUD$73.99; eBook: £31.49/AUD$66.99. doi: 10.4324/9780429461132
×
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