Studies In The Jurisdiction Rules Of ICSID

China has concluded Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with more than 110countries till now, our state has accepted the jurisdiction of ICSID completely in some new BITs. At present, it is very important to evaluate the influence by the acceptance of ICSID jurisdiction and explore the possible remedial measures. According to some other countries' lessons, this article aims to put forward tactics fitting to our national conditions by analyzing the advantages and disadvantages the acceptance of ICSID jurisdiction. Firstly, taking NAFTA as an example to analyze the recent U.S.A.'s attitude towards the international investment dispute arbitration as a representative of developed countries, actually NAFTA has designed some provisions to protect the investment-host state in phase of "pre-dispute" and "in course of dispute", the policymakers of the developed countries such as Canada and United States also realized that they should try their best to put arbitration place of NAFTA investment disputes in their own state, thus it will form a last line of defense; Secondly, taking Argentina's attitude towards investment disputes jurisdiction as an example of developing countries, trying to find the best way fitting to the developing countries, the BITs of Argentina are too unrestrained to be successful in domestic and aboard measures. China is also a developing country and just in phase of shifting to market economy, so the economy situation is very possible to fluctuate. We should draw a lesson from Argentina's law crisis and prevent the explanations made by ICSID arbitration court from doing harm to China; Lastly, on purpose to find the best way to accept the jurisdiction of ICSID according to the analyzing in the four ways, which refer to "complete consent"; "consent case by case"; "limited consent" and "consent with important exceptions".