China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

BAC Publishes 2022 Report on International Investment Arbitration in China

Mon, 17 Oct 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

In September 2022, Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC) published the “International Investment Arbitration in China: An Annual Review and Preview (2022)” (2022年度中国国际投资仲裁年度观察, hereinafter the “Report”).

The Report mainly introduces the following aspects:

(1) International investment agreements negotiated or concluded by China in 2022,

More specifically: (1) the market access commitments made in the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI); (2) China’s bid to join the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA); (3) the entry into force of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in China; and (4) WTO members’ negotiations for a multilateral agreement on investment facilitation.

(2) Investment arbitration cases with the Chinese government as the respondent or Chinese investors as the Claimants,

As of 31 Mar. 2022, there have been eight investment disputes with the Chinese government as the respondent and 19 with Chinese investors as the claimants. The Report analyzes the overview and characteristics of these cases.

(3) Analysis of significant legislative activities, laws, and regulations concerning foreign investment,

(4) Investment dispute settlement in China,

(5) Reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and

(6) Participation of Chinese arbitration institutions, arbitrators, and lawyers in international investment arbitration.

 

 

Cover Photo by Jeremy Cai on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.