By Rostislav Pekar and Ondrej Sekanina, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
China's bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which include several treaties with EU member states, traditionally did not provide for an investor-state arbitration clause. In the past, China's lack of an investor-state arbitration clause made investment arbitration subject to a subsequent agreement to arbitrate, or restricted the scope of the arbitration clause to the determination of compensation for expropriation.1 In 1998, China's policy changed.2 Most BITs that have been signed since 1998, again including several treaties with EU member states, have provided for an unrestricted investor-state arbitration clause that permits an efficient enforcement of all substantive protections.3 Some post-1998 BITs have not yet entered into force.4
INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION CLAUSES
Investors cannot realize the tremendous potential of substantive protections granted under BITs without an enforcement mechanism. The only autonomous and efficient enforcement mechanism is investment arbitration. Contrary to common belief,...
The rest of this article is available to subscribers only. Subscribe now to continue reading this article and to have full access to all other articles and full-text translations.