In recent years, the use of third-party funds (TPF) in mainland China and beyond has grown significantly. Under the third-party funding model, the risks and costs of litigation or arbitration are transferred to parties outside the case. The parties with economic difficulties have a better chance of obtaining legal justice. However, the financial motives of third-party funders are not always in the interest of the parties or the courts’ need to review the cases efficiently and impartially. Therefore, appropriate regulatory measures against the potential risks of TPF are necessary. By comparing recent developments and historical backgrounds in the field of TPF in different countries, this book reveals differences in regulatory approaches to TPF in selected jurisdictions. In combination with China’s legal tradition, social conditions and empirical research, the author also offers suggestions on how to solve legal issues related to TPF in China. Against the background that the development of TPF in China is still in its infancy and China’s Arbitration Law is being revised, this book not only helps Chinese legislators formulate regulations on TPF, but also provides a great guiding tool for litigation and arbitration parties.

The variation of countries’ industrial policies and political strategies in a multipolar world brings the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime to a crossroad. Backlash to the inconsistency, non-transparency, partiality and unfairness of the ISDS regime results from the states’ changing interests and policy priorities, including the rising awareness of democracy. In pursuing the benefits of multilateralism, a multilateral investment court can serve as an alternative to the current investment arbitration regime. States need to clarify the scope of consent based on their political economic considerations. Substantial investment protection standards can be different, whereas the principle of proportionality can serve as an approach to the balance between investment protection and states’ policy arrangements. Meanwhile, there should be efforts to align the interpretation and application of key provisions, possibly through interpretation notes and an appellate body that reviews arbitral decisions, to generalise implicit consensus and to broaden collective acceptance of the regime.

The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is such a means to an end of further economic development and wider social political goals. With major protective provisions of expropriation against compensation, fair and equitable treatment, national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, full protection and security and umbrella clause, it helps establish a predictable, transparent, and enforceable legal regime to protect foreign investors’ legitimate expectations and lawful investment. As China intends to attract foreign investments by offering a stable business operation environment, its signing a large number of BITs and FTAs may help reduce political and socio-economic risks, which give states, businesses, and individuals the confidence to work in a coordinated manner. The economic development goal, rule of law strategy, tense US-China relations, ideology of multilateralism and community of common destiny, all add up to China’s inclination to incremental but effective ISDS reform.

British colonial policies have led to stratified societies all over the world and America is no exception. But America is unique in transiting to an equal society and constructing the legal framework to achieve a fair society, even though not completely successful. What distinguishes America from other British colonies is the tradition of rule of law. Perhaps this tradition is also the most priceless heritage that the Britain left for America. Currently, racial discrimination and racial equality protests spread across America. This book provides valuable insights for understanding the divided America.

Although the key purpose of international investment law is to promote foreign investor protection by offering both substantive and procedural standards, the international investment governance regime needs to strike a balance between foreign investor rights protection and the host state’s right to regulate. The changing balance of this dichotomy shapes a leaving-and-return-of-the-state paradigm which explains and rationalizes an evolutionary development of both substantive and procedural norms and the changing status of sovereignty in international investment law. The “leaving” or “return” of the state paradigm informs us of the role of the state in the context of international investment law. This article makes a normative case for reframing investment and national security within what we call the investment rule of law. Both push for and pull from a liberalization movement are in an attempt to reshape this investment rule of law surrounding the concept of sovereignty, the core of international law.

The extension of MFN clauses to dispute settlement under BITs is one of the most controversial areas in investment treaty law. Currently, the area is divided into two streams of case law. The award in Tze Yap Shum v Peru and other recent Chinese investment arbitral awards did not side the Maffezini stream. The question on which stream works the best for China is complicated and essentially a balancing exercise. This article examines the question from a Chinese perspective and adopts the analytical framework of the New Haven School. It identifies the issue of comparability of more preferential treatment as the key criterion in determining the question. It reviews the previous case law and assesses the economic, social and cultural factors shaping the Chinese investment policy. From there, the article seeks to discover if the current law helps fulfil China’s policy goals and proposes recommendations accordingly.

Isotropic pitch-based carbon fiber was successfully prepared from tetrahydrofuran-soluble fraction of coal tar pitch cocarbonization with petrolatum by air-blowing. The effects of reaction temperature and time, amount of petrolatum added on the composition and spinning properties of resultant pitches were investigated. It indicated that petrolatum could effectively improve the softening point, aromaticity, hydrogen content and molecular weight of the resultant pitches by promoting cross-linking and dehydrogenation polymerization reactions at low air-blowing temperature. Moreover, more aliphatic and naphthenic structures had been introduced into resultant pitches as addition of petrolatum and also inhibited the generation of quinoline-insoluble particles. The obtained green fibers were facile to be stabilized and carbonized and the resultant carbon fibers showed fully isotropic and finer, uniform diameter with smooth surface and higher tensile strength of up to 0.92 GPa. It provided a facile chemical modification method for isotropic pitch-based carbon fiber production.

Although China has been an active ‘treaty-maker’ in the realm of international investment arbitration as evidenced by its more than 120 bilateral investment treaties, the utility of these BITs has been very limited. Substantive standards such as expropriation and compensation have never been comprehensively tested with respect to these BITs. This article scrutinizes the concept of expropriation by reference to Chinese investment treaty jurisprudence, in particular, the final award of Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru and China’s free trade agreement with Peru, the only Chinese BIT-related ICSID case. This article critically examines, in a comparative context, the treaty interpretation methodologies employed by the tribunal in interpreting expropriation under the China-Peru BIT, which is one of the earlier Chinese BITs. A thorough study of this subject is of great significance to interpreting the terms of indirect expropriation and compensation in Chinese BITs, thereby offering more concrete foreign investment protections based on investment treaties.