On The Transparency Provisions In2012U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty

2012U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty(hereinafter referred to as2012U.S.Model BIT) is the latest model after the2004U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty.Some clarifying changes were made to the provisions of this new Model, especiallytransparency provisions which are of the most important among the revised provisions.The content of transparency provisions are extended, and the transparencyrequirements are further improved so as to promote transparency and treat privateinvestment in an open, transparent, and non-discriminatory way in U.S. BITs program.The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law widely discussed theissue of transparency in the field of international investment law. As the key amendedprovisions, transparency provisions may draw attention from the potential parties ofUnited States BITs.Even though the2012U.S. Model BIT transparency provisions are very strict interms, there are some semantic vagueness which may result in potential difficulty inlegal interpretation. Furthermore, the demand for improving transparency may bringtrouble for BIT negotiation. Since China lack of transparency provision in BITs andshort of practical experience in ICSID, it is urgent to have an in-depth research in2012U.S. Model BIT for the coming round of China-US BIT negotiations.Since there is no unify definition of the word “transparency” in InternationalEconomic Law, Part I firstly gives brief introduction to transparency provision andtransparency-related concept, the function of transparency provision in InternationalInvestment Law so as to make transparency provision clear and lay foundation for thefollowing analysis.Basing on methord of text analysis, Part II introduces transparency provisions in2012U.S. Model BIT.By comparing the transparency provisions in2012U.S. Model BIT and othertreaties, part III summarizes some distinctive features of the new Model, such as theinfiltration of WTO principle of transparency, represents the highest level of BITs andthe trend of "Socialization". Basing on the above analysis, Part IV describes potential plight of transparencyprovision, namely the semantic vagueness of the text which brings great troubles to theinterpretation of transparency provision under recent international investment system.The requirements for transparency have been further increased, which may bring BITnegotiation obstacles. This thesis provides two ways to deal with these difficulties. Oneis to make use of the case-law, another is to make use of the actives of the States Partiesin treaty interpretation.On the basis of the foregoing discussion, combined with the practice of China’sBIT transparency provisions, the last part examines the position our country shouldstick in China-US BIT negotiations for transparency provisions. This thesis suggestsgenerally accepted transparency provisions but treat the concrete content differently. Inorder to make smooth progress in negotiation, China should also improve thetransparency of the legislative process.