The Trend Of Local Remedies In International Settlement Of Investment Disputes The Host Country

In solving international investment disputes, whether from the angle of maintaining and respecting a country's sovereignty or the angle of the closest relationship, the local remedy from the host country is very important and the premise for resort to any international solution. And the method has its own sufficient bases of international law.But recent legislation and judicial practice of international investment show that the local remedy from the host country has the obvious trend for being weakened and avoided. The method is seldom required in bilateral treatments which take the absolute advantageous position in international investment legislation by manifest giving-up or as a choice.. The function of ICSID, the most influential board for solving international investment disputes, has been greatly weakened by the design of local remedy from the host country; MAI draft and CET with obvious characteristic of free investment regard local remedy from the host country as an alternative; The dispute settlement systems of WTO MIGA and NAFTA completely exclude the application of local remedy from the host country.Law is basically social and changes with the continuous development of the society, so local remedy from the host country has inevitably its internal social motive. Since 1980s, as a result of the rapid development of regional economic integration and economic globalization, the international investment legislation has made breaking-though progress and show obvious free quality.It's remarkable that such changes are not rational, for economic globalization is blind in itself. Basically, the world's economic globalization is capitalism-dominated globalization. Thus, developed countries inevitably will make investment rules beneficial to themselves including disputes settlement rules that weaken and avoid the local remedy from host countries, which are mainly developing countries.Therefore, under the background of economic globalization, facing such changes, it's necessary to consider its values. As for the dispute settlement system for international investment, international settlement, especially multilateral settlement is the best choice. But at present this solution isn't realistic, at most realistic in few investment fields between countries with similar economic development level.. Considering the fact that most countries are developing ones which are also main capital-exporting countries and capital-importing countries are a few developed countries, local remedy from host countries is still of great value in settling investment disputes. In a word, the present reality of the world determines that there should be a balance between international settlement and local remedy from host countries in settling international investment disputes to keep the world developing harmoniously.China accepts the local remedy from the host country in its foreign-related investment legislation and judicial practice, but the contents in the investment agreements signed are different and unharmonious and the legislative technique isn't developed. And there is no domestic measures auxiliary with ISCID, which brings many barriers against the local remedy from the host country. The situation that China is the developing country which absorbs the most foreign capital determines that the system of local remedy from the host country should be maintained in China to protect its economic interest and security. Meanwhile, according to the quality of disputes, local remedy from the host country should be given up and more alternative rights to get remedy should be given to foreign investors as for disputes which has little effect on the national interests to set up China's good international image in the world.