| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In stark contrast to the explosive growth of Chinese bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the utility of these BITs has been very limited, which is, as argued, attributable to the restrictive investor-State arbitration clauses in these BITs. Against this background, the jurisdictional award of the recent International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes case, Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru, therefore, is of particular significance as the governing treaty, the Agreement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Peru Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments of 1994, embodied a narrow dispute settlement clause. This article attempts, in the context of established international investment case law, to scrutinize several key aspects of the investor-State arbitration clause that were heavily debated and arbitrated in the case of Tza Yap Shum as well as the treaty interpretation methodologies employed by the tribunal.
|