To prevent parallel proceedings, international investment agreements (IIAs) have incorporated the “fork-in-the-road” clause and “no-U-turn” clause to coordinate domestic and international proceedings to the same investment dispute. The “no-U-turn” clause is more flexible than the “fork-in-the-road” clause because it permits the investor to initiate international arbitration after commencing domestic proceedings against the same measure of the host state. When applying “no-U-turn” clauses in investor-state arbitration cases where China is the respondent state, China’s relevant administrative litigation laws should be considered. This article explores two core issues that should be clarified when interpreting Chinese “no-U-turn” clauses, namely, the identity of the actor initiating domestic proceedings and the time when domestic proceedings can be withdrawn under Chinese law. By analyzing the deficiencies of the existing Chinese “no-U-turn” clauses which may cause ambiguity and impair their effectiveness in preventing parallel proceedings, this article proposes corresponding improvement suggestions. There should be more clarity in the wording of “no-U-turn” clauses that specify the identity of the party filing and withdrawing domestic proceedings. Additionally, China should establish more specific standards for allowing the withdrawal of administrative litigations.
References
[1]
Cozac, S. (2016). New Trends in International Arbitration in Relation with the “Fork-in-the-Road” Principle. Romanian Arbitration Journal Revista Romana de Arbitraj, 10, 48-58.
[2]
Cremades, B. M., & Madalena, I. (2008). Parallel Proceedings in International Arbitration. Arbitration International, 24, 507-540. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/24.4.507
[3]
Dias Simões, F. (2017). UNCITRAL’s Work on Concurrent Proceedings in Investment Arbitration: Overcoming the “Treaty/Contract Claims” Gap. In Harmonising Trade Law to Enable Private Sector Regional Development (pp. 59-80). New Zealand Association of Comparative Law.
[4]
Dolzer, R., Kriebaum, U., & Schreuer, C. (2022). Principles of International Investment Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
[5]
Du, T. (2019). Hela Schwarz v. China and the Concurrency of Litigation and Arbitration in ISDS. Business and Economic Law Review, 3, 130-147.
[6]
Investment Arbitration Reporter (2020). Hela Schwarz v. China Tribunal Rejects China’s Request for Bifurcation, but Accepts Amendments to the Claimant’s Request for Arbitration. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/hela-schwarz-v-china-tribunal-rejects-chinas-request-for-bifurcation-but-accepts-amendments-to-the-claimants-request-for-arbitration/
[7]
Judkiewicz, M. (2015). Waiver of Right to Other Proceedings as a Condition to State’s Consent in Investor-State Arbitration. https://renati.sunedu.gob.pe/bitstream/sunedu/1593847/1/JudkiewiczM.pdf
[8]
Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Potestà, M., Kaufmann-Kohler, G., & Potestà, M. (2020). The Interplay between Investor-State Arbitration and Domestic Courts in the Existing IIA Framework. In G. Kaufmann-Kohler, & M. Potestà (Eds.), Investor-State Dispute Settlement and National Courts: Current Framework and Reform Options (pp. 31-86). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44164-7_3
[9]
Marshall, F. (2009). Risks for Host States of the Entwining of Investment Treaty and Contract Claims: Dispute Resolution Clauses, Umbrella Clauses, and Forks-in-the-Road. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/615437/risks-for-host-states-of-the-entwining-of-investment-treaty-and-contract-claims/1595950/
[10]
Mundi, J. (n.d.). Wiki Note: Fork in the Road. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-fork-in-the-road
[11]
Reinisch, A. (2008). 7. The Proliferation of International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: The Threat of Fragmentation vs. the Promise of a More Effective System? Some Reflections from the Perspective of Investment Arbitration. In I. Buffard, J. Crawford, A. Pellet, & S. Wittich (Eds.), International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation (pp. 107-126). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004167278.v-0.48
[12]
UNCTAD (2023). World Investment Report 2023.
[13]
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2014). Investor-State Dispute Settlement. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaeia2013d2_en.pdf
[14]
Voitovich, S. A. (2020). Fork in the Road in Investment Disputes. Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, 9, 39-59.
