| Up to now,in the practice of investment treaty arbitration,there are only two cases in which the Chinese government acts as the respondent.The case is the first time that the Chinese government has successfully won the case as a defendant in ICSID.This article takes the specific content of the case of Ansung Housing Co.Ltd.,v.People’s Republic of China as the breakthrough point,and makes a legal analysis of the focus of dispute in this case.Based on the analysis of the practice of the award and the Chinese government.On the one hand,we should understand the similar tendencies and attitudes of the arbitral tribunal in the practice of arbitration,and strengthen the Chinese government’s future countermeasures.On the other hand,in light of the current situation of international investment and the characteristics of risks faced by it,and drawing lessons from the risk prevention system of overseas investment,suggestions are put forward from the perspectives of investors and countries,domestic laws and international laws,bilateral investment agreements,etc.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this article is divided into four chapters.The first chapter mainly expounds the facts of Ansung Housing Co.,Ltd.v.People’s Republic of China investment dispute case.This part mainly introduces the background of the case between Ansung Housing Co.,Ltd.v.People’s Republic of China and the causes of the dispute,and describes the development process of the case.The second chapter is mainly about the legal analysis of the first controversial focus of the arbitration case.It is related to whether the center has jurisdiction,and the definition of "manifestly without legal merit".Finally,it explains the first controversial focus of the case in combination with the award,and draws a conclusion that the arbitration claim beyond the limitation of arbitration constitutes "manifestly without legal merit".The third chapter concentrates on the second focus of the case of Ansung Housing Co.,Ltd.v.People’s Republic of China investment dispute.It mainly involves the analysis of MFN treatment clauses,the corresponding interpretation of MFN treatment clauses in BIT of China and Korea,and further analyses the focus of the case from a three-dimensional perspective.Finally,the conclusion is that the MFN clause can not be applied to the conclusion of arbitration in this case.The fourth chapter mainly focuses on the revelation of Ansung Housing Co.Ltd.,v.People’s Republic of China investment dispute case.Combining with the current situation of international investment in China,this paper tries to solve a series of difficult problems for domestic investors to invest overseas,so as to further safeguard the interests of domestic enterprises to invest overseas.At the same time,it involves the signing and perfection of BIT clause by the Chinese government,and provides some feasible ways for China to solve the problem of international investment dispute settlement.It also puts forward reasonable suggestions on how to improve China’s role in the settlement of international investment disputes. |
