Abstract
Under the background of the “Belt and Road” initiative, international trade disputes could be classified into three types: international trade disputes between states, international investment disputes between state and investor, and international trade disputes between parties as non-states. Due to the characteristic of difference disputes, there are different settlement mechanisms. For disputes that involve states in the context of the “One Belt and One Road” initiative, the Multilateral dispute settlement mechanism such as World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) should not be applied directly because of their limitations or shortcomings of their mechanism, but the New York Convention is the most effective mechanism for resolving disputes between individuals over international trade. The model of international trade between countries along the “Belt and Road” is “China-centered” and “peer-to-peer”, which determined the superiority of bilateral consultation and settlement mechanism, thus it is urgent to improve or revise bilateral treaties between China and the countries along the “Belt and Road”. At the meantime, it is also essential to create a “reticular trade” environment among countries with a view to promoting the establishment of multilateral cooperation mechanisms among countries along the “Belt and Road”.
Highlights
This article intends to point out its inadaptability and weakness of current international trade dispute mechanism, and propose alternative solutions through the review of the current treaties related to Belt and Road dispute settlement, aiming at effectively protecting the interest of Belt and Road initiative from Chinese perspective
The Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement does not provide for a more detailed dispute settlement mechanism, it stipulates in Article 24 that “The Committee shall communicate with third countries and international organizations in matters relating to the interpretation and operation of this agreement, and may request the technical advice and the co-operation of national and international organizations”, leaving the possibility of drawing on dispute resolution mechanisms from international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Since Chinese President Xi Jinping first introduced the “Belt and Road” initiative in 2013, a series of institutional development, policy development and summit forums have been promoted in the progress of the “Belt and Road” initiative, such as Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank set in October 2014, “Vision and Action to Promote the Construction of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road” which jointly issued by three Chinese Ministries
Summary
In order to promote international cooperation of the Belt and Road countries, properly resolve commercial disputes with the construction process, protect the legal rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties and create a fair and just business environment, Chinese government decided to establish two Transnational Commercial Courts which locate in Xi’an and Shenzhen to resolve the international trade dispute between the individual (WCPG, 2018). The effective settlement of the Belt and Road disputes under the international treaty system needs to be reconsidered. This article intends to point out its inadaptability and weakness of current international trade dispute mechanism, and propose alternative solutions through the review of the current treaties related to Belt and Road dispute settlement, aiming at effectively protecting the interest of Belt and Road initiative from Chinese perspective
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
