Make a Submission
Vol. 38 (2018)
General Articles

Protection of Polish Investors under the China-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty

PDF
  • Peng Wang,
  • Maciej Żenkiewicz
Peng Wang
Xi'an Jiaotong University School of Law
Maciej Żenkiewicz
Universidad Externado de Colombia

Published 2018-12-31

Keywords

  • China-Poland BIT,
  • investment protection,
  • investment arbitration

Copyright (c) 2021 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Protection of Polish Investors under the China-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty. (2018). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 38, 141-163. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2019.129610

Abstract

This article explores investment protection under Chinese international investment agreements (IIAs), particularly under the China-Poland bilateral investment treaty (BIT). As a state that both imports and exports foreign direct investment, China currently promotes balanced and safeguarded BITs that protect its increasing overseas investments and preserves the necessary space to regulate in the public interest. The Chinese government remains reluctant to be directly involved in investment arbitration as a respondent, while Chinese investors are active in taking advantage of the IIAs’ regime. When compared to China’s recent treaty practice and new developments in global investment governance, the China-Poland BIT is relatively outdated in terms of investment protection, promotion, social clauses, and dispute settlement. In terms of the investment protection effects of BITs, China is seemingly in a more urgent position to update the China-Poland BIT. However, if we evaluate the overall effects of a modernized BIT on investment promotion, regulation, and dispute settlement, an updated China-Poland BIT will fit the interests of both the Polish and Chinese governments. Notwithstanding the on-going negotiation between the EU and China, this article aims, along with presenting the Chinese practice regarding BITs, to describe de lege lata the state of protection offered to Chinese and Polish investors under the China-Poland BIT.

PDF

References

  1. Alon I., Fetscherin M., Gugler P. (eds.), Chinese International Investments, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2012.
  2. Ansung Housing Co., Ltd v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25, Award, 9 March 2017.
  3. Australian Airlines v. Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 9 October 2009.
  4. Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company Ltd., China Heilongliang International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp., and Qinhuangdaoshi Qinlong International Industrial Co. Ltd v. Mongolia, PCA Case No. 2010-20, Award, 30 June 2017.
  5. Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/30.
  6. Bian Y., A Revisit to China’s Foreign Investment Law. With Special Reference to Foreign Investment Protection, „Journal of East Asia and International Law” 2015, vol. 8, no. 2.
  7. Blaszczak L., Kolber J., Annulment and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Poland, „ASA Bulletin” 2012, vol. 30, no. 3.
  8. Brown Ch., Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
  9. Cai C., Balanced Investment Treaties and the BRICS, „AJIL Unbound” 2018, vol. 112.
  10. Cai C., Roberts A., Introduction to the Symposium on the BRICS Approach to the Investment Treaty System, „AJIL Unbound” 2018, vol. 112.
  11. Chen A., The Voice from China, An Chen on International Economic Law, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2013.
  12. China’s reservations to New York Arbitration Convention, available at: https://bit.1y/2LxJQ22 [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  13. Cohen T., Schneiderman D., The Political Economy of Chinese Bilateral Investment Treaty Policy, „The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law” 2018, vol. 5, no. 1.
  14. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (adopted 10 June 1958, entered into force 7 June 1959) 330 UNTS 38.
  15. Davies K., Inward PDI in China and Its Policy in Context, „China International Journal” 2012, vol. 10, no. 1.
  16. Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Commerce, List for Special Administrative Measures for Admission of Foreign Investment in the Pilot Free Trade Zone (Negative List) (2018 Version)], 30 June 2018, available at: http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/201806/20180628222647715.pdf (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  17. Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Commerce, List for Special Administrative Measures for Admission of Foreign Investment (Negative List) (2018 Version)], 28 June 2018, accessed at: http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbl/201806/WO20180628640822720353.pdf (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  18. Ekran Berhad v. People’s Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/15.
  19. Eliasson N., Investor-State Arbitration and Chinese Investors, Recent Developments in Light of the Decision on jurisdiction on the Case Mr. Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru, „Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal” 2009, no. 2.
  20. EU and China agree on scope of the future investment deal, Brussels, 15 January 2016, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1435 [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  21. European Commission, Report of the 19th round of negotiations for the EU-China Investment Agreement, Brussels, 13 November 2018, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/november/tradoc_ 57495.._.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  22. Ewert I., The EU-China Bilateral Investment Agreement: Between High Hopes and Real Challenges, Security Policy Brief No. 68, February 2016, available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/148912339.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  23. Fei J., Horrigan B., Furlong T., China sued by South Korean property developer at ICSID, Herbert Smith Freehills Dispute Resolution, 10 November 2014, available at: http://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2014/11/1 0/china-sued-by-south-korean-property-developer-at-icsid/ [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  24. Gallagher N., Role of China in Investment: BITs, SOEs, Private Enterprises, and Evolution of Policy, „ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal” 2016, vol. 31, no. 1.
  25. Gallagher N., Shan W., Chinese Investment Treaties. Policies and Practices, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009.
  26. Gas Natural SDG, S.A v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10, Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2005.
  27. Hela Schwarz GmbH v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19.
  28. Husa J., Accurately, Completely, and Solemnly: One Country, Two Systems and an Uneven Constitutional Equilibrium, „The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law” 2017, vol. 5, no. 2.
  29. Huth M., Zeng J., China and ICSID Arbitration. Can the ICSID arbitration regime serve as a suitable tool for dispute resolution in investment contracts with Chinese governmental authorities? „Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht” 2011, vol. 18.
  30. Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern, 21 June 2011.
  31. Kidane W., China’s and India’s Differing Investment Treaty and Dispute Settlement Experiences and Implications for Africa, „Loyola of Chicago Law Journal” 2018, vol. 49.
  32. Kidane W., China’s Bilateral Investment Treaties with African States in Comparative Context, „Cornell International Law Journal” 2016, vol. 49, no. 1.
  33. Kidane W., The Culture of International Arbitration, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017.
  34. Kidane W., Zhu W., China-African Investment Treaties. Old Rules, New Challenges, 37 „Fordham International Law Journal” 2014, vol. 37.
  35. Ku J., The Enforcement of ICSID Awards in the People’s Republic of China, „Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal” 2013, vol. 6, no. 1.
  36. Li S., Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements: Practice of the People's Republic of China [in:] P. Waart, P. Peters, E. Denters (eds.), International Law and Development, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Dordrecht 1988.
  37. Liu X. (ed.), The Beginning of China's Opening Up, „Economy & Management Publishing House” 2008.
  38. Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000.
  39. Markert L., Arbitration under China’s Investment Treaties - Does It Really Work?, „Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal” 2012, vol. 5, no. 2.
  40. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Press Release by Spokesperson of Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of 21 October 2016], available at: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/jzhsl_673025/tl407728.shtml [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  41. Morek R., Sadowski W., Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Poland [in:] P. Pietkiewicz et al. (eds.), Arbitration in Poland, Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, Warszawa 2011.
  42. Notifications Concerning a Class or Classes of Disputes Which the Contracting State Would or Would Not Consider Submitting to the Jurisdiction of the Centre (Article 25(4)), 7 January 1993, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/MembershipStateDetails.aspx?state=ST30 [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  43. Official Statement of the General Director for National Roads and Motorways available at: https://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/a/26149/Ugoda-pomiedzy-GDDKiA-a-firma-COVEC-zawarta [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  44. Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA, Case No. 2012-12, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015.
  45. Ping An Life Insurance Company, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company, Limited v. The Government of Belgium, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29, Award, 30 April 2015.
  46. Point M. Du, Foreign Direct Investment in Transitional Economies. A Case Study of China and Poland, Macmillan Press, London 2000.
  47. Quasar de Valors SICAVS.A. et al (Formerly Renta 4 S. VS.A et al.) v. Russian Federation, SCC Case No. 24/2007, Award on Preliminary Objections, 20 March 2009.
  48. Regulation EU No. 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transnational arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries [2012] OJ L 351.
  49. Remin A., Uznawanie i wykonywanie zagranicznych orzeczeń arbitrażowych w aspekcie porównawczym między Niemcami, Austrią, Polską i Szwajcarią [Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards from the comparative perspective of Germany, Austria, Poland and Switzerland], „ADR” 2009, vol. 2, no. 6.
  50. Ren Q., Ping An v Belgium: Temporal Jurisdiction of Successive BITs, „ICSID Review” 2016, vol. 31, no. 1.
  51. Repousis O.G., On Territoriality and International Investment Law: Applying China’s Investment Treaties to Hong Kong and Macao, „Michigan Journal of International Law” 2015, vol. 37, no. 1.
  52. RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. Russian Federation, SCC Case No. Abr. V 079/2005, Award on Jurisdiction, 5 October 2007.
  53. Rules of the Ministry of Commerce on the Implementation of Security Review on Merger of Domestic Enterprise by Foreign Investors], MOFCOM Decree [2011] 53,25 August 2011, available at: http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2011-08/26/content_1934046.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  54. Salacuse J.W., The Emerging Global Regime for Investment, „Harvard International Law Journal” 2010, vol. 51, no. 2.
  55. Salacuse J.W., The Law of Investment Treaties, Oxford University Press, New York 2010.
  56. Sanum Investment Ltd v. Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic [2016] SGCA 57.
  57. Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-13, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 December 2013.
  58. Schill S., Tearing Down the Great Wall. The New Generation Investment Treaties of the People’s Republic of China, „Cardozzo Journal of International and Comparative Law” 2007, vol. 15, no. 1.
  59. Schreuer C., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001.
  60. Shan W., Chen H., China-US BIT Negotiation and the Emerging Chinese BIT 4.0 [in:] C.L. Lim (ed.), Alternative Visions of the International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2016.
  61. Shan W., Toward a Multilateral or Plurilateral Framework on Investment, „The E15 Initiative” 2015.
  62. Siemens A. G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004.
  63. Standing Committee of National People’s Congress, Decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on the Application of the Interim Regulations on Value Added Tax, Consumption Tax and Business Tax for Foreign-invested Enterprises and Foreign Enterprises, 29 December 1993, available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/wxzl/2000-12/05/content_4610.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  64. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Arbitration Law of China, amended on 1 September 2017, available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2017-09/12/content_2028692.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  65. Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Civil Procedural Law of China], Arts. 237, 274, amended on 27 June 2017, available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2017-06/29/content_2024892.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  66. Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Explanations of Some Questions by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Concerning the Implementation of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region], adopted at the Nineteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress on 15 May 1996, http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclaw full texten.pdf (in English); http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/wxzl/2001-02/06/content_4661.htm (in Chinese) [both accessed: 30 May 2019].
  67. Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, National Security Law of China], Art. 59, 1 July 2015, available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2015-07/07/content_1941161.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  68. Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Nationality Law of China, enacted on 10 September 1980, available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/2000-12/11/content_5004393.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  69. Supreme People's Court of China, Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Implementing the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Acceded to by China], No. 5 [1987] of the Supreme People’s Court, 4 October 1987, available at: http://www.people.com.cn/zixun/flfgk/item/dwjjf/falv/9/9-1-7-1.html [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  70. The Central People’s Government of China, Regulations on the Administration of Foreigners' Entry and Exit of China], 3 July 2013, available at: http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2013-07/22/content_2477673.htm (in Chinese) [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  71. The High Court of the Republic of Singapore, Judgment in the matter of Order 69A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5,2006 Rev Ed) between Government of the Lao People) Democratic Republic and Sanum Investment Ltd., [20151 SGHC 15.
  72. The official website of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), available at: http://www.focac.org/eng/ [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  73. Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence, 12 February 2007.
  74. UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS [assessed: 30 May 2019].
  75. Vaccaro-Incisa G.M., The Evolution of China’s Policy and Treaty Practice in International Investment Law. An Outline, „Bocconi Legal Papers” 2014, no. 4.
  76. Żenkiewicz M., Compensable vs. Non-compensable States’ Measures. Blurred Picture and Changing Borderlines Under Investment Law, „Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Sixth Biennial Global Conference” November 19, 2018, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3287271 [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  77. Zhan J., G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking. A Facilitator Perspective, „E15 Initiative” December 2016.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.