![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Since the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was proposed in 2013, researchers have discussed the establishment of pertinent comprehensive dispute settlement bodies or mechanisms led by China. Practices concerning the China International Commercial Court (CICC) have seemingly provided evidence that the time is ripe for China to introduce a more integrated and institutional dispute settlement system. However, such analysis partially overlooks several elements key to the efficient functioning of the BRI. This article intends to explore the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive China-led BRI dispute settlement mechanism, as a matter of policy choice based on the following aspects: whether the cooperation model and development prospects of the BRI currently support a China-led dispute settlement mechanism, whether the BRI’s existing dispute settlement mechanism is irreplaceable in terms of its potential for improvement and recognition by countries, and whether China and the BRI countries have established sufficient relationships of mutual trust in terms of economic and political relations, and have a reliable legal basis for designing and participating in the new system. Based on these three perspectives, this study concludes that it is not advisable for China to hasten to establish a unified BRI dispute settlement mechanism. Instead, China should uphold the principle of openness and inclusiveness, adhere to the principle of achieving shared growth through discussion and collaboration, and efficiently manage the BRI dispute settlement issue using existing bilateral and multilateral ties with BRI countries.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation for the invaluable comments on earlier drafts from Professor Jiangyu Wang; the anonymous peer reviewers of the Asia Pacific Law Review; and the Journal’s Managing Editor, Madeleine Fitzpatrick. Any omissions and faults remain the authors’ own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The most typical example of this, as discussed later in this article, is the signing and updating of dispute settlement clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between China and BRI countries. Many countries are reluctant to resort to internationally accepted institutions such as the ICSID. See notes 71, 72, and 73. China certainly has some concerns in this regard. See Yanzhi Wang, ‘The Plural Models in International Investment Dispute Settlement Reform and China's Options’ (2019) 25(4) Journal of Central South University (Social Sciences) 73, 78.
2 Legal and political scholars agree with this point, but legal scholars disagree over the course of action to adopt in current times. See Guiguo Wang, ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanism for The Belt and Road Strategy’ (2016) 3(2) China Law Review 33; Xulong Chen, ‘Strategies and New Perspectives for Promoting the Evolution of the International Order in an Enormous Changing World’ (2021) 29(1) Pacific Journal 35.
3 Michael M Du, ‘China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative: Context, Focus, Institutions, and Implications’ (2016) 2(1) Chinese Journal of Global Governance 30, 36.
4 For those who stand in favour of ‘maintaining the existing framework’, see Wenge Zeng and Shufeng Dang, ‘International Economic Rules Innovation on the Belt and Road Initiative’ (2016) 36(3) International Business Research 25; Xiuli Han and Yumeng Zhai, ‘Investor–State Arbitration Mechanism in Sino–Foreign Investment Agreement Under the “Belt and Road” Initiative’ (2017) 5 Chinese Review of International Law 20; Chao Zhang and Xiaoming Zhang, ‘Study on International Dispute Settlement Mechanism of One Belt One Road Strategy’ (2017) 44(2) Southeast Asian Affairs 24; Jingdong Liu, ‘Building Fair and Reasonable Dispute Settlement Mechanism of One Belt One Road Initiative’ (2017) 25(5) Pacific Journal 13; Jingxia Shi and Nuan Dong, ‘The Construction of Investor–State Dispute Settlement Mechanism Under “The Belt and Road” Initiative’ (2018) 2(2) Wuhan University International Law Review 1; for those who support the establishment of a new and comprehensive dispute settlement institution, see Wang (n 2); Guiguo Wang, ‘Research on the Dispute Resolution Mechanism for the Belt and Road Initiative’ (2017) 34(6) China Legal Science 56; Yang Lu, ‘The Establishment of “Belt and Road” International Investment Disputes Settlement Institution’ (2017) 4 Chinese Review of International Law 83; Beiping Chu, ‘The Present and Future of a “Belt and Road” Multi-Dispute Settlement Center’ (2017) 26(6) China Legal Science 72; Lina Zhang, ‘Research on Improvement of the International Investment Disputes Settlement Mechanism Under “One Belt One Road” Initiative’ (2018) 39(8) Law Science Magazine 32; Qi Wang, ‘Explanation and Construction of “One Belt One Road” Disputes Resolution Mechanism’ (2018) 39(8) Law Science Magazine 13; Xiangyang Li, ‘High-Quality Development and Institutionalization of the Belt and Road’ (2020) 5 World Economics and Politics 51.
5 ‘Opinion Concerning the Establishment of the Belt and Road International Commercial Dispute Resolution Mechanism and Institutions’ (CICC, 27 June 2018) <http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/819.html> accessed 20 January 2021.
6 Li (n 4) 55.
7 Patrick M Norton, ‘Conflicts on the Belt & Road: China’s New Dispute Resolution Mechanism’ (2019) 8(1) Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 82, 84.
8 Julien Chaisse and Mitsuo Matsushita, ‘China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative: Mapping the World Trade Normative and Strategic Implications’ (2018) 52(1) Journal of World Trade 163.
9 Yanzhi Wang, ‘International Economic Order Under “Belt and Road” Initiative: Development-Oriented vs Rule-Oriented’ (2019) 28(1) Northeast Asia Forum 78.
10 Xiangyang Li, ‘A Comparative Study of TPP and “One Belt and One Road”’ (2016) 29(9) World Economics and Politics 29, 34; Yan Liu and Xiang Huang, ‘Risk Prevention and Control of “Belt and Road” Countries in Construction: On the Perspective of International Law’ (2015) 31(8) Journal of International Economic Cooperation 26, 27; Office of the Leading Group for the Belt and Road Initiative, The Belt and Road Initiative Progress, Contributions and Prospects (Foreign Languages Press, 2019).
11 Xiangyang Li, ‘The Belt and Road Initiative: Regionalism or Multilateralism?’ (2018) 31(3) World Economics and Politics 34.
12 Haiyun Wang and others, ‘The Background, Potential Challenges and Future Direction of the Silk Road Economic Belt’ (2014) 19(4) Russian Central Asian & East European Market 3.
13 Office of the Leading Group for the Belt and Road Initiative, Building the Belt and Road: Concept, Practice and China’s Contribution (Foreign Languages Press, 2017).
14 Guisheng Cao and Tian Li, ‘A Review on the Seventh Anniversary of the “One Belt One Road” Initiative: Key Issues and Safeguard Policies’ (2020) 28(8) Henan Social Sciences 53, 59.
15 Zhang and Zhang (n 4) 30.
16 Xiaohong Jiang, ‘The Nexus Between Trade and Human Rights: An Analysis of the Human Rights Goal in EU Trade Law’ (2016) 34(5) Chinese Journal of European Studies 79; Wang Ping, ‘Study on Conditionality of IMF Loan and International Protection of Human Rights’ (2018) 2(3) Wuhan University International Law Review 62.
17 Jinping Xi, ‘Open Up New Horizons for China-Mongolia Relations Through Mutual Assistance’ People’s Daily Online (23 August 2014) <http://finance.people.com.cn/n/2014/0823/c1004-25523274.html> accessed 29 April 2020.
18 Yuncheng Bao, ‘Legal Thinking on the Construction of “One Belt One Road”’ (2015) 22(1) Forward Position 67.
19 Zhipeng He and Jie Shang, ‘The Effectiveness, Limitation and Perfection of International Soft Law’ (2015) 37(2) Gansu Social Sciences 129; Zhipeng He and Jie Shang, ‘Role of Soft Law’ (2015) 33(8) Hebei Law Science 18, 21; He Jiang, ‘From Politics Between Great Powers to International Rule of Law: An Approach to International Soft Law’ (2020) 38(1) Tribune of Political Science and Law 47, 50.
20 Yonghong Han, ‘On the Soft Law Safeguard Mechanism of “Belt and Road” International Cooperation’ (2016) 30(4) Contemporary Law Review 151, 154; Lingliang Zeng, ‘Conceptual Analysis of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A Road Towards a Regional Community of Common Destiny’ (2016) 15(3) Chinese Journal of International Law 517, 540.
21 Office of the Leading Group for the Belt and Road Initiative (n 4).
22 Shi and Dong (n 4).
23 Zhipeng He, ‘A Study of and Response to the International Economic Rule of Law Pattern and China’s Position on the TPP’ (2016) 30(1) Contemporary Law Review 43, 52.
24 For discussion on the establishment of an international system, see Joseph S Nye and Robert O Keohane, Power & Interdependence (Pearson, 2011); Stephen D Krasner, Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism (University of California Press, 1985).
25 Zhipeng He, ‘The “Belt and Road” and China’s Contribution to the International System’ (2016) 38(9) Study & Exploration 49.
26 Kejin Zhao, ‘Why Does China Want to Lose Money? Top 10 Questions that “One Belt One Road” Should Not Avoid’ (Phoenix International Think Tank, 24 November 2015) <https://pit.ifeng.com/event/special/yidaiyiludiaoyan/chapter8.shtml> accessed 15 April 2020.
27 Zeng and Dang (n 4).
28 ‘Opinion Concerning the Establishment of the Belt and Road International Commercial Dispute Resolution Mechanism and Institutions’ (CICC, 27 June 2018) <http://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/208/210/819.html> accessed 21 January 2021.
29 Alyssa V M Wall, ‘Designing a New Normal: Dispute Resolution Developments Along the Belt and Road’ (2019) 52(1) New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 279, 292.
30 Norton (n 7) 103.
31 Zeng (n 20); Jin Sheng, ‘The “One Belt, One Road” Initiative as Regional Public Good: Opportunities and Risks’ (2020) 21 Oregon Review of International Law 75.
32 Jing Liu, ‘Analysis on Establishing Chinese International Investment Dispute Settlement Institution: From the Perspective of Remedying the Shortcomings of ICSID Mechanism’ (2020) 22(5) Journal of Chaohu University 53, 56.
33 Bo Wang, Liying Zhang, and Changzheng Dai, ‘Investment Risks Along the Belt and Road and China’s Solution’ (2018) 8(3) Journal of WTO and China 63, 66.
34 Chu (n 4).
35 Malik R Dahlan, ‘Dimensions of the New Belt & Road International Order: An Analysis of the Emerging Legal Norms and a Conceptionalisation of the Regulation of Disputes’ (2018) 9 Beijing Law Review 88.
36 Yubi Li and Lan Wang, ‘The Identification and Coping Strategies of Legal Risks in the Construction of “One Belt One Road”’ (2017) 18(2) Journal of Chinese Academy of Governance 77.
37 ‘World Investment Report 2015: Reforming International Investment Governance’ (UNCTAD, 24 June 2015) <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2015_en.pdf> accessed 25 January 2021.
38 Xiuli Han, ‘Revisiting the Revival of Calvo Doctrine: From the Perspective of Dispute Settlement Between Investor and State’ (2014) 35(1) Modern Law Science 121, 123; Xiuli Han and Yumeng Zhai, ‘Investor–State Arbitration Mechanism in Sino-Foreign Investment Agreement Under the “Belt and Road” Initiative’ (2017) 5 Chinese Review of International Law 20, 26.
39 Liu and Huang (n 10); Jie Huang, ‘Silk Road Economic Belt: Can Old BITs Fulfil China’s New Initiative?’ (2016) 50 Journal of World Trade 737, 746; Han and Zhai (n 38) 20; Yawei Ma and Tong Qi, ‘On the Construction of the “Belt and Road” Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism’ (2018) 38(3) International Business Research 85, 91.
40 Li n (4) 60.
41 Xuetong Yan, ‘Strategic Relationships, Not Transport Facilities, Are at the Heart of “One Belt One Road”’ International Herald Leader (23 June 2015) <http://ihl.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2015/0623/826925.shtml> accessed 21 April 2020.
42 Patrick M Norton, ‘China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Challenges for Arbitration in Asia’ (2018) 13(2) University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review 72, 80.
43 Yin Chen and Li Xue, ‘Exploration and Analysis of Governance Mechanism on Innovations Along the Belt and Road: From the Perspective of Global Political Sociology’ (2020) 5 Fudan Journal (Social Sciences) 160, 163, 166.
44 Jin Xu, ‘Supporters, Observers and the Cautious on the Belt and Road’ The Paper (16 February 2015) <www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1304333> accessed 29 April 2020.
45 Zeng and Dang (n 4) 32.
46 Zheng Wang, ‘China’s Alternative Diplomacy’ The Diplomat (30 January 2015) <https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/chinas-alternative-diplomacy> accessed 29 April 2020; William Yale, ‘China’s Maritime Silk Road Gamble’ The Diplomat (22 April 2015) <https://thediplomat.com/2015/04/chinas-maritime-silk-road-gamble> accessed 29 April 2020.
47 Michael Stash, ‘The New Silk Road: The Chinese Supreme People’s Court’s “International Commercial Court” and Opportunities for Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (2019) 35(1) Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 109, 120.
48 Wall (n 29) 292.
49 Yijun Zeng, ‘The Framing Analysis on the “Belt and Road Initiative” Related Reports from Britain Mainstream Newspapers: A Case Study on the Guardians, the Telegraph, and the Times’ (Master’s thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University 2019).
50 Jianying Ma, ‘The US Perception of and Response to China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative’ (2015) 28(10) World Economics and Politics 104.
51 Norton (n 42) 78; Xiaoli Lyu and Haiyan Li, ‘Vietnam’s Cognition of the Belt and Road Initiative: Hesitation Amid Mistrust’ (2019) 34(6) Peace and Development 87.
52 Raja Mohan and Samudra Manthan, Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific (Oxford University Press, 2013); Daulet Singh, ‘Indian Perceptions of China’s Maritime Silk Idea’ (2014) 8(4) Journal of Defence Studies 133; Gurpreet S Khurana, ‘Maritime Silk Road: China’s “Master-Stroke” of Economic Diplomacy?’ Academia (28 August 2014) <www.academia.edu/8124142/_Maritime_Silk_Road_China_s_Master_Stroke_of_Economic_Diplomacy> accessed 29 April 2020.
53 Hailin Ye, ‘India’s South Asia Policy and Its Impact on OBOR’ (2016) 3(2) Indian Ocean Economic and Political Review 4, 8; Cuiping Zhu, ‘Strategic Directions for the Belt and Road Initiative in South Asia: Geo-Politics, the Question of India and Possible Paths for Progress’ (2017) 39(2) South Asian Studies 1, 5; Fei Xie, ‘Research on Russian Mainstream Media Belt and Road Report’ (2017) 2(5) Global Communication 16.
54 Shi and Dong (n 4) 13.
55 Kate M Supnik, ‘Making Amends: Amending the ICSID Convention to Reconcile Interests in International Investment Law’ (2009) 59 Duke Law Journal 343, 351.
56 Xiangxiu Wang, ‘The Construction of an Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism Under the Belt and Road Initiative’ (2020) 4 Northeast Asia Forum 15, 19.
57 Norton (n 42) 100.
58 Yuchen Liu, ‘From Participant to Leader: China’s Identity Change in the Provision of International Public Goods’ (2015) 23(9) Pacific Journal 76.
59 Siling Yang, ‘The Management of China’s Relations with Its Neighbors and Its Challenges Under the Initiative of One Belt One Road’ (2015) 37(2) South Asian Studies 15, 16; Weiguang Chen and Yan Wang, ‘Co-Constructing “One Belt One Road”: An Analytical Framework on Relation-Based Governance and Rule-Based Governance’ (2016) 29(6) World Economics and Politics 93; Xi Xiao and Guoxin Song, ‘Relation-Based Governance and Protection of China’s Overseas Interests Along the “Belt and Road” Route’ (2019) 35(1) Probe 44.
60 Yang (n 59).
61 Shannon Tiezzi, ‘The New Silk Road: China’s Marshall Plan?’ The Diplomat (6 November 2014) <https://thediplomat.com/2014/11/the-new-silk-road-chinas-marshall-plan> accessed 21 January 2021; Michele Penna, ‘China’s Marshall Plan: All Silk Roads Lead to Beijing?’ World Politics Review (9 December 2014) <www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/14618/china-s-marshall-plan-all-silk-roads-lead-to-beijing> accessed 15 January 2021; WSJ Opinion, ‘China’s Marshall Plan’ The Wall Street Journal (11 November 2014) <www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-marshall-plan-1415750828> accessed 15 January 2021.
62 Zixun Zhou, ‘China’s Version of the Marshall Plan Was Conceived to Be a One-Shot Plan’ Shanghai Securities News (7 November 2014) <http://news.cnstock.com/news,yw-201411-3234807.htm> accessed 15 January 2021; Ziming Lai, ‘The Public Opinion-Hyped New Marshall Plan’ Securities Times (7 November 2014) <www.p5w.net/stock/news/zonghe/201411/t20141107_826154.htm> accessed 16 September 2021.
63 Jingxin Sun, ‘The International Public Opinion Environment for Belt and Road Construction’ People’s Daily Online (16 April 2015) <http://dangjian.people.com.cn/n/2015/0416/c117092-26856073.html> accessed 29 April 2020.
64 Chenyang Li, ‘Exploring the Pattern of Relations Between Countries of Different Scales: A Case Study of China–Myanmar Relations Since the Latter's Political Transition’ (2014) 34(2) Global Review 17, 29.
65 Weiran Wang and Tong Chen, ‘Review and Reflections on the Establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Free Trade Zone (2003–2013)’ (2014) 34(6) Russian, East European & Central Asian Studies 49.
66 Xiao and Song (n 59).
67 Yinhong Shi, ‘The Construction of the Belt and Road Should Not Be Carried Out Too Fast’ China Economic Herald (20 May 2017) <www.ceh.com.cn/llpd/2017/05/1034595.shtml> accessed 25 February 2021; ‘The Construction of the Belt and Road Should Be Promoted Prudently’ People’s Daily Online (5 July 2015) <http://world.people.com.cn/n/2015/0705/c1002-27256546.html> accessed 29 April 2020; Johan Nylander, ‘The Perils of China’s Silk Road Revival’ Al Jazeera (14 September 2014) <www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/09/perils-china-silk-road-revival> accessed 29 April 2020.
68 Guiguo Wang, ‘The Belt and Road Initiative in Quest for a Dispute Resolution Mechanism’ (2017) 25(1) Asia Pacific Law Review 1.
69 China’s Ministry of Commerce, ‘China Has Signed Investment Agreements with 56 Countries Along the Belt and Road’ NetEase News (31 May 2015) <https://news.163.com/16/0531/17/BODMLMRK00014SEH.html> accessed 22 January 2021.
70 Vivienne Bath, ‘“One Belt One Road” and Chinese Investment’ in Wolff Lutz-Christian and Xi Chao (eds), Legal Dimensions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (Wolters Kluwer Hong Kong, 2016).
71 China’s Ministry of Commerce, ‘List of Bilateral Investment Treaties China Has Signed with Foreign Countries’ (Ministry of Commerce, PRC, 12 December 2016) <http://tfs.mofcom.gov.cn/article/Nocategory/201111/20111107819474.shtml> accessed 29 January 2021.
72 These include central Kuwait, Malaysia, Slovakia, Greece, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Lithuania, and Yemen. See UNCTAD, ‘International Investment Agreements Navigator’ (UNCTAD, 29 January 2021) <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements> accessed 29 January 2021.
73 These include Turkey, Romania, Iran, Brunei, Cyprus, Jordan, Myanmar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Russia, India, and Uzbekistan. Ibid.
74 For the use of the mechanism by states, see ICSID, ‘Search Cases’ (ICSID, 29 January 2021) <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/AdvancedSearch.aspx> accessed 29 January 2021.
75 Lu (n 4) 85.
76 Ma and Qi (n 39) 89.
77 Wuhan University Overseas Investment Law Research Center, ‘Statistical Table of Foreign Investment Legislation, Contracting and Litigation of Belt and Road States’ (Wuhan University International Economic Law Review, 1 February 2018) <www.sohu.com/a/140674061_652123> accessed 29 April 2020.
78 Lu (n 4) 86.
79 World Trade Organization, ‘Members and Observers’ (WTO, 30 January 2021) <www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm> accessed 30 January 2021.
80 Xixiang Song and Cong Tian, ‘On Construction of International Commercial Dispute Settlement Mechanism Under “One Belt One Road”’ (2019) 21(2) Cross-Strait Legal Science 26.
81 Yan Liu and Xiang Huang, ‘Risk Prevention and Control of “Belt and Road” Countries in Construction: From the Perspective of International Law’ (2015) 31(8) Journal of International Economic Cooperation 26, 28.
82 Jiaxiang Hu, ‘How Will the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism Evolve After the Appellate Body Ceases to Function?’ (2020) 36(1) International Economics and Trade Research 10, 13.
83 Peng Yu, ‘WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism Crisis: Reasons, Progress and Prospects’ (2019) 5 International Trade 10, 12.
84 Chunlei Shi, ‘Orientation and Development of International Commercial Arbitration in the “One Belt One Road” Disputes Resolution Mechanism’ (2018) 39(8) Law Science Magazine 24; Song and Tian (n 80); Linping Yang, ‘Research on Belt and Road International Commercial Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Centered on the International Commercial Court of the Supreme People’s Court’ (2019) 51(25) People’s Judicature 34.
85 Queen Mary, University of London, ‘2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration’ (International Arbitration Information by Aceris Law, 21 November 2018) <www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/White-Case-and-Queen-Mary-2015-survey.pdf> accessed 20 February 2021.
86 Julien Chaisse and Qian Xu, ‘Conservative Innovation: The Ambiguities of the China International Commercial Court’ (2021) 115 AJIL Unbound 17.
87 Stash (n 47) 129.
88 Shi and Dong (n 4) 20.
89 Liu and Huang (n 10) 28.
90 Hu Ren, ‘Treaties on the International Trade Dispute Settlement and the China Belt and Road Initiative’ (2019) 10(3) Beijing Law Review 441, 450.
91 Zachary Mollengarden, ‘One-Stop Dispute Resolution on the Belt and Road: Toward an International Commercial Court with Chinese Characteristics’ (2019) 36(1) UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 65, 103.
92 Simon Lester and Huan Zhu, ‘US Trade Policy in the Biden Administration: The Challenge of China’s Rise’ (Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 21 December 2020) <https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2020/12/21/us-trade-policy-in-the-biden-administration-the-challenge-of-chinas-rise> accessed 22 January 2021.
93 Qi Meng, ‘On the Feasibility of Using the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as the Economic and Trade Dispute Settlement Mechanism for the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization”’ (2019) 26(3) Journal of Shanghai University of International Business and Economics 43.
94 Wang (n 56) 22.
95 ‘Statement of the Co-Chairs of the Forum on Belt and Road Legal Cooperation’ Xinhua News Agency (3 July 2018) <www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2018-07/03/c_1123073746.htm> accessed 29 April 2020.
96 Wang, ‘Explanation and Construction’ (n 4) 22.
97 Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Cornell University Press 2004).
98 Wuhan University Overseas Investment Law Research Center, ‘Research Report on the Construction of the Belt and Road Dispute Settlement Mechanism’ (Wuhan University International Economic Law Review, 25 April 2017) <www.sohu.com/a/136449571_652123> accessed 29 April 2020.
99 Zhang and Zhang (n 4) 31.
100 Evgeny Raschevsky, ‘When “One Belt One Road” Project Disputes Arise, Who Will Resolve Them?’ (Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners, 24 November 2017) <https://epam.ru/en/media/view/when-one-belt-one-road-project-disputes-arise-who-will-resolve> accessed 29 April 2020; Mark Feldman, ‘Belt and Road Dispute Settlement and Transnational Governance’ The Asia Dialogue (30 July 2018) <https://theasiadialogue.com/2018/07/30/belt-and-road-dispute-settlement-and-transnational-governance> accessed 29 April 2020.
101 Dahlan (n 35) 107.
102 Jinping Xi, ‘Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the Belt and Road International Cooperation Summit Forum’ People’s Daily Online (14 May 2017) <http://cpc.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0514/c64094-29273979.html> accessed 29 April 2020.
103 National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, ‘Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road’ <www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zywl/t1251719.htm> accessed 29 April 2020; ‘Official in Charge of Office of the Leading Group for the Belt and Road Initiative Answers Reporters’ Questions’ Xinhua News Agency (7 February 2017) <www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/xwzx/gnxw/6436.htm> accessed 15 April 2020.
104 Chu (n 4) 75, 78.
105 Zhipeng He, ‘The Belt and Road Initiative and China’s Exploration in the Construction of International Institutions’ (2017) 7(2) Journal of WTO and China 14, 18.
106 Shaun Breslin, ‘China and the Global Order: Signaling Threat or Friendship?’ (2013) 89(3) International Affairs 615, 615; Sajaya Bam, ‘China’s One-Belt-One-Road Initiative Is Not Just About Economics’ The Economic Times (25 April 2017) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/chinas-one-belt-one-road-initiative-is-not-just-about-economics> accessed 29 April 2020.
107 Zeng and Dang (n 4) 32.
108 Liming Wang, ‘The Internationalization Level of China’s Commercial Arbitration Needs to Be Improved’ (2016) 23(10) China’s Foreign Trade 15.
109 Wuhan University Overseas Investment Law Research Center, ‘Research Report on the Construction of the Belt and Road Dispute Settlement Mechanism’ (Wuhan University International Economic Law Review, 25 April 2017) <https://www.sohu.com/a/136449571_652123> accessed 15 April 2020.