Download pdf
Reflection on Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in China’ s Practice
- 1 East China University of Political Science and Law
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
International investment law always emphasizes the importance of improving the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard. Though many studies have summarized several new changes in the FET standard worldwide in recent years, there is a lack of effective evaluation and unified explanation for China’s FET standard practice. Therefore, this paper aims to expound the hidden problems and solutions to China’s application of the FET standard by exploring the developments of the FET standard in terms of treaty design and arbitration interpretations in recent years. The paper finds that states turn to impose a restriction of the scope of protection in bilateral investment treaties & international investment agreements as well as polish FET clauses in a more precise way, while the overall design of the FET standards in China remain backward. In addition, arbitration tribunals have more specific interpretations of the connotation of FET, but China's lack of arbitration experience makes it difficult to optimize FET clauses through arbitration interpretations. Therefore, this paper suggests China should specify its FET clauses in semi-closed enumeration method and more precise expression and systematically study tribunal interpretations of the FET standard elements as reference.
Keywords
Fair and Equitable Treatment standard, practice in China, treaty design, Tribunal interpretations
[1]. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law , 2022, World Investment Report 2022, United Nations Publication, 9.
[2]. Ministry Of Commerce Of The People’S Republic Of China, 2023, China’s Outward Investment And Economic Cooperation Report 2023, 2.
[3]. Havana Charter for an International Trade Organization, art 11.2(a), 24 March 1948, E/CONF.2/78, U.N. publication, Sales No 1948.II.D.4.
[4]. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law, vol 2004/03 (2004) OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2004/03 3.
[5]. Rudolf Dolzer, 2005, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties, 39, 87, 89.
[6]. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1967, Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, OECD/LEGAL/008, art1(a), Retrieved from https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/2812/download
[7]. Chen Yu, 2024, International adjudication as interactional law-making: the incorporation of fair and equitable treatment elements in investment treaties, Journal of International Economic Law, 27 , 261, 267, 271.
[8]. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, Thomson West, 2014.
[9]. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States Article 42(3)“The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not prejudice the power of the Tribunal todecide a dispute ex aequo et bono if the parties so agree.”
[10]. Germany–Turkey BIT (n2) art 1.
[11]. Eg Korea- Belgo-Luxemburg BIT, 20 December 1974 (terminated 27 March 2011), art 1(3).
[12]. Eg Netherlands–Venezuela BIT, 22 October 1991 (terminated 1 November 2008), art Ad 3(1), 22; North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, The United States and Mexico, 17 December 1992 (terminated 1 July 2020), art 1105.
[13]. Mujeeb Rahman Emami, 2021, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in InternationalInvestment Law: The Customary Status, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 121.
[14]. Yannick Radi, 2013, The "Human Nature" of International Investment Law, Transnational Dispute Management, Grotius Centre Working Paper 2013/006-IEL Leiden Law School Research Paper, 10:1, 5.
[15]. Peter Muchlinski, 2021, Multinational Enterprises and the Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed , 625.
[16]. Frederick Alexander Mann, C.B.E., F.B.A., 1981, British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, B.Y.B.I.L, 52:1, 241-244.
[17]. Roland Klager, 2011, Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in International Investment Law , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , 269.
[18]. Eg Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Award (20 August 2007); Biwater Gauff v Tanzania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/22, Award (24 July 2008).
[19]. NAFTA Free Trade Commission, 31 July 2001, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions .
[20]. Eg Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Between Canada of the One Part, and the European Union and Its Member States, of the Other Part (signed 30 October 2016, provisionally entered into force 21 September 2017) art 8.10(2). See also Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty art 3, Retrieved from https://dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/Model BIT_Annex_0.pdf .
[21]. Eg. Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement in 2008, Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement in 2014 and Mexico-Panama Free Trade Agreement in 2014.
[22]. Eg the investment agreement between India and Kyrgyzstan in 2019 and the investment agreement between India and Belarus in 2018.
[23]. Eg Article II of the 2017 Investment Agreement between Iran and Hungary and Article III of the 2016 Investment Agreement between Iran and Slovakia.
[24]. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Retrieved from https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/canada/eu-canada-agreement/ceta-chapter-chapter_en.
[25]. Ji Yun-xiang, Hu Xiao-Hong, 2016, On Fair and Equitable Treatment in the Global Governance—Analysis of the Investment Disputes, Journal of Northwest Normal University(Social Sciences, 6, 37.
[26]. Jonathan Bonnitcha, 2014, Fair and Equitable Treatment, in Substantive Protection under Investment Treaties: A Legal and Economic Analysis, Jonathan Bonnitcha eds, Cambridge University Press, 143, 190.
[27]. LG&E v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, paras133-134.
[28]. Eco Oro v. Colombia, ICSID Case no. ARB/16/41, Decision on Jurisdiction, Quantum and Liability, 9 Sep. 2021, para. 544.
[29]. Giuseppe Bellantuono, 2017, The Misguided quest for Regulatory Stability in the Renewable Energy Sector. World Energy L. & Bus. 4, 274–292.
[30]. Niclas Landmann, 2022, Legitimate Expectations and Fair and Equitable Treatment under the Energy Charter Treaty: A Comparative Analysis of the Renewable Energy Cases.
[31]. ZHU Yue, 2023, Intellectual Property Protection Disputes under International Investment Agreements: Challenges to Fair and Equitable Treatment and Their Solutions, Global Law Review, 5, 221.
[32]. UN Trade& Development, Retrieved from <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/42/china.
[33]. A Blue Book on the Protection of Overseas Investment of China Enterprises, Retrieved from https://test.bjac.org.cn/news/view?id=4541.
[34]. ICSID Cases Database, Retrieved from https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB(AF)/22/7.
[35]. RosInvest Co UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation (2010), SCC Case No. 079/2005 at para 137.
[36]. Commission, 2007, Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Citation Analysis of Developing Jurisprudence, 129.
[37]. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (formerly Aguas Argentinas, S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic) (2015), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), at para 189.
[38]. Kauffmann-Kohler Gabriele, 2007, Arbitral P.recedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse?, 357.
Cite this article
Wu,F. (2025). Reflection on Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in China’ s Practice. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,79,17-24.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of ICGPSH 2024 Workshop: Industry 5 and Society 5 – A Study from The Global Politics and Socio-Humanity Perspective
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).