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.

This paper aims to give a preliminary proposal to DRT to represent the universal and existential readings of donkey sentences within the framework of Kamp and Reyle (1993). When only EVERY DRS construction rule is applied to donkey sentences without any universal effect, existential readings as basic and universal readings as additional can be obtained from them. Meanwhile, whenever universal effect comes out of the context, UNIVERSAL EFFECT DRS construction rule I propose in this paper should be applied to the donkey pronoun. The result is that only universal readings will be obtained. Though some donkey sentences have only existential readings and others only universal readings, the typical donkey sentences are ambiguous for two readings. In this respect, along with Chierchia (1995), I presume that existential readings are basic and universal readings are additional. I try to seek an adequate proposal in this paper, on the basis that universal readings are stronger, in the sense that they entail the corresponding existential readings.