Research On ICSID Jurisdiction

As the economy globalization speeds up more quickly,China extends width and depth of the opening-up.In order to respond to the “going out” strategy the government proposed,our domestic enterprises go abroad to carry out overseas investment actively,they expand the amount of foreign trade,and the investment methods in foreign countries have transferred from single indirect investment to direct investment.There is no doubt,due to the huge differences of investment environment in various aspects between off-shore investment environment and domestic environment,for instance,the political system, legal system,folk customs, and so on, they will induce investment disputes easily between state and other private investors.The generation of investment disputes will reduce the domestic enterprises’ overseas interests greatly, thus reduce the enterprises’ enthusiasm of going-out.In order to resolve the investment disputes appropriately and obtain a relatively fair and reasonable result,investors tend to submit the disputes to the third party of the dispute settlement body,and International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes is one of the best choices undoubtedly. The paper starts from the case that between Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited, Ping An Insurance( Group) Company of China,Limited(Hereinafter referred to as China Ping An)and Kingdom of Belgium about investment arbitration, then uses the research methods,for example,case,comparison,comprehension and note and analyzes the essential requirements of ICSID jurisdiction.This paper totally have five parts, first of all,the article is about case review and summaries of the focal points;then it mainly expounds the interpretation and application of the treaty, it includes taking effect and the failure of the treaty, the treaty interpretation methods and the application of the treaty; after that, it discusses the subjective elements about the consent given by the both parties, and analyses the consent’s form and scope;next, it’s the affirmation standards of proper disputes,including standards of investment and its existence;At the last,it mainly states the enlightenment that the case brings to the Government of the People’ s Republic of China and domestic enterprises.we could make the determination about ICSID’s jurisdiction to the case by clearing those questions. Ping An puts forward claims to the Belgian government,although they have failed to demand compensation, but the spirit of safeguarding the legal rights deserves to advocate. The case occupies very important position in the history of China’s overseas investment, it can provides the lessons and experiences to domestic enterprises’ overseas investment in the future, then can better safeguards China’s overseas investment interests.