As the most important dispute resolution mechanism in international investment, the ICSID system is valued for the efficiency of its proceedings and the finality of its awards. Due to the significance of ICSID to international investment laws, the international arbitration community has been calling for a high degree of substantive fairness in ICSID awards. However, based on past decisions, ICSID has not been able to strike a balance between procedural justice and substantive fairness. The drafters of the ICSID Convention intended the ICSID internal annulment system to be an error correction mechanism or a remedy for the parties to a ruling, when an arbitral tribunal or an arbitration report seriously violated the provisions. The ICSID annulment procedure is different from the appeal mechanism, and its review is based on extremely limited reasons and does not include a review of legal errors. Currently, the third working group of UNCITRAL is reforming the ISDS system, and the revision of the ICSID arbitration rules is also underway. This article discusses how to develop the current ICSID annulment system to promote greater substantive fairness in ICSID decisions.

Over the past decade, the backlash against investment arbitration has become worldwide and correspondingly the investment treaty reform has been undertaken at multiple levels. In this context, a multilateral investment agreement (“MIA”) has been called for as a global effort to address the global backlash. Arguably, the current condition for a MIA might be more favorable than before, as the interests of developed countries and developing countries have changed. After examining the need of a MIA for the global backlash, this paper attempts to explore China’s recent practice in this aspect, including that (1) China’s changing interest in outward foreign direct investment and investment treaty practice reflect the changing landscape of international investment law; (2) the 2016 G20 under China’s presidency achieved the Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking; and (3) China has joined to work on a multilateral framework on investment facilitation at the WTO.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a new model of international cooperation and new platform for global governance under contemporary international law. The Initiative will promote basic principles of international law, playing the mediating role of preventing disputes and resolving various risks in the process of establishing a new pattern of global governance. The Initiative is in line with the new trend of international cooperation and development in the 21st century, representing a new round of the process of reforming international political economy. It is a useful attempt to enhance China’s contribution to economic co-prosperity and political stability among the countries along the Belt and Road. This paper tries to understand the BRI under contemporary international law. Part two will discuss the status of the BRI. Part three will investigate the influence of the BRI. Part four will analyze the function of contemporary international law for co-building the Belt and Road.

China’s Supervision Law is the legislation that governs China’s leading and fundamental approach to anti-corruption. Its main content includes the objective, guiding ideology, principle and leadership system of supervision work, the authority, formation and duties of the supervision committee, the supervision procedures, and the supervision of the supervisory organizations and supervisors. The Supervision Law embodies the characteristics of a combination of party rules and national laws. This power structure is completely different from the separation of powers in Western countries: it does not control power by checks and balances and civil rights. This raises concerns about “who will supervise the power of the Commission or a higher level of power,” “human rights protection” and “procedural issues.” The Supervision Law not only means significant changes in China’s anti-corruption legislation, but also those in China’s governance style, which will have a profound impact on China’s future political and legal aspects.

The Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China has attracted great attention worldwide since its adoption on March 15, 2019, and will come into force on January 1, 2020. This law can be regarded as the most important law of China in the field of foreign investment since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization. The legislation process of the foreign investment law of the People’s Republic of China has expressed the strong will of the Chinese legislature in amending and perfecting the legal system. The implementation of this law will positively impact the future investment environment of China. This article analyses the background and evolution of the legislation procedure, the highlights and features of the law compared with earlier related laws in the field of foreign investment of China, and the impact and insufficiency of the law, together with the issues following the implementation of the law.

In 2013, China unveiled its dream of retrieving the ancient Silk Road by undertaking massive infrastructure projects and adding value to ports around the Silk Road. The Belt and Road Initiative (“BRI”) refers to China’s proposed Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road This big project has recently been accepted by Nepal. Nepal has its own foreign direct investment (“FDI”) laws and policies. This paper aims to analyze these laws and policies from the perspective of China’s BRI. The specific objective is to explore the importance of BRI in Nepal and the major challenges for its implementation in reference to Nepalese FDI laws and policies. The essence of BRI is to promote regional and crosscontinental connectivity between China and other countries along the Belt and Road. The BRI is relevant to social, cultural, and economic development of its associated countries. Trans-Himalayan connectivity, political transition of Nepal and property right of Nepal is the leading challenges for BRI implementation in Nepal.

This article analyzes the Sino-US Summit in Osaka in 2019 and its influence on trade negotiations between China and the US in the near future. By a look at the reports from China’s side and the US’ side, the article figures out what has been agreed and what are the most controversial issues on table. Having an observation of the new development after the Summit, the article tries to analyze the direction and ways forwards for the Sino-US trade talks, and make predictions based on a certain of factors including challenges faced by the US, the need of China as well as the attitude of the world. It is easy to figure out that agricultural products and the supply of equipment relating to Huawei were the key points at issue in the Sino-US Summit as well as in the future. The exchange and compromises are necessary between China and the US regardless of whether they are happy to admit it or not.

President Trump has, for the first time in the US trade history, aggressively redefined the US trade policy as a supporting actor in the US national security policy. His presidential actions have involved a broad array of legislation, such as trade sanctions and export controls. Most astonishing is that President Trump has imposed trade restrictions by relying upon unilateral findings of national security risks or the existence of national emergencies. We are now at a point where federal courts in the US have been asked to review the validity of presidential trade actions, specifically the central legality of the broad delegation of congressional trade authority over the last 75 years. I predict that the federal courts will uphold the separation of powers in the face of the outrageous and unprecedented onslaught of presidential tariff and trade actions by a president relying upon dubious claims of national security and national emergency.