Research On The Investment Dispute Case Of Ping An Company V. The Kingdom Of Belgium

In the current Chinese enterprises to participate in overseas investment under the situation of rapid battle,it is very important to guard against overseas investment risks and to protect the interests of China's overseas investment in a comprehensive,deep and practical way.Ping An company v.Kingdom of Belgium investment dispute case ended with the failure of Ping An company under the ICSID arbitration mechanism,the award of this case made the investment interests of Ping An company damaged in Belgium uncompensated,but the theoretical and practical problems reflected in the case are thought-provoking.The author will take the ICSID jurisdiction and identification of indirect expropriation as the theoretical basis to analyze the focus of the case in the procedural and substantial aspects,and put forward the specific countermeasures from two aspects of Chinese government and enterprises to protect China's overseas investment.At last,in view of the existing problems of the existing ICSID jurisdiction system,the suggestions for the reform of the ICSID jurisdiction system are put forward.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this article is divided into four chapters.The first chapter mainly expounds the facts of Ping An company v.Kingdom of Belgium investment dispute case.Firstly,the case background and the case progress are introduced.Secondly,the main contents of the dispute in this case are introduced,and the two focus of the case are summed up.The second chapter mainly interprets the first controversy focus of Ping An company v.Kingdom of Belgium investment dispute case-whether ICSID enjoys jurisdiction.The author from the two aspects of the ICSID arbitration mechanism and China-Belgium BIT,respectively according to the three elements to determine the jurisdiction of ICSID and the jurisdiction clause in China-Belgium BIT makes a concrete analysis of the first controversy focus,and finally,the conclusion is concluded that the ICSID arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over the case.The third chapter mainly analyzes the second controversial focus of Ping An company v.Kingdom of Belgium investment dispute case-whether the Belgian government's intervention behavior constitutes indirect expropriation.The author from the two aspects of the identification of indirect expropriation and China-Belgium BIT,respectively according to the general and auxiliary method about the identification of indirect expropriation and theIndirect expropriation clause in China-Belgium BIT makes a concrete analysis of the second controversy focus,and finally,the conclusion is concluded that the Belgian government's intervention behavior constitutes indirect expropriation.The fourth chapter mainly studies the enlightenment of Ping An company v.Kingdom of Belgium investment dispute case.The author analyzes the reasons for the failure of Ping An company in ICSID arbitration and the reasons for the Belgian government refutes the indirect expropriation of its intervention,from the two angles of Chinese government and enterprises,some suggestions are put forward to deal with the overseas investment disputes.And in view of the existing problems of the existing ICSID jurisdiction system,the suggestions for the reform of the ICSID jurisdiction system are put forward.