Key lessons can be made from analysing a unique and recent BIT, the Canada–China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA), in order better to predict and identify the opportunities and challenges for potential BIT counterparties of China (such as the United States, the European Union (EU), India, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Columbia). The Canada–China FIPA and the anticipated US–China BIT (and EU–China BIT) collectively fall into a unique class of investment agreements, in that they represent a convergence of diverse ideologies of international investment norms/protections with two distinct (East/West) underlying domestic legal and economic systems. The purpose of this chapter is to appreciate and utilize the legal content of the Canada–China FIPA in order to isolate the opportunities and challenges for investment agreements currently under negotiation (focusing on the US–China BIT). This analysis is conducted from the perspective of China’s traditional BIT practice and political–economic goals, relative to that of its counterparty. This chapter briefly addresses the economic and broader diplomatic relationship between China and Canada, comparing that with the United States. It then analyses a broad selection of key substantive and procedural obligations of the Canada–China FIPA, addressing their impact, individually and cumulatively, to extract what lessons can be learned for the United States (US) and other negotiating parties. This analysis identifies the degree of investment liberalization and legal protection that Canada and China have achieved, and whether these standards are reciprocally applied. The analysis is not divorced from the relevant political economy and negotiating position between China and the counterparty and the perceived economic benefits of each party, as well as any diplomatic sensitive obstacles between the parties. While this chapter does not exhaustively analyse each substantive and procedural right, it provides enough of a comprehensive basis to reveal those challenges that remain for future bilateral negotiations with China.

The purpose of this article is to critically analyse the methodology and impact of the investment chapter the European Union (EU) proposed for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It focusses on the innovations of an appellate body and the incorporation of a ‘right to regulate’-provision, as well as general exceptions that are very similar to Article XX of the GATT. In light of the development that these features have been replicated in the CETA and the EU-Vietnam FTA, it questions why the EU is changing the traditional form of investor-State arbitration in a preferential trade and investment agreement and whether the EU’s model is viable, and formulated on a robust design that will stand the test of time.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract