Abstract
Abstract
This article explores the terms “BRI dispute” and “BRI jurisprudence”. It undertakes a practical and theoretical analysis that considers whether “BRI disputes” have distinct and visible characteristics and are capable of being identified in a legal sense. This is important since practitioners – arbitration centres and law firms – use the term broadly and without specific criteria. By exploring the customary usage and the approach of legal scholars to the term, presenting examples of “BRI disputes” and examining their unique features, and constructing a theoretical approach (utilizing the concepts of ratione materiae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione personae; and considering the jurisprudence of the ICSID), this article moves from a broad to a narrow analysis to develop both a definition and a system of registration of “BRI disputes” for use by academics, practitioners, and policymakers.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference14 articles.
1. Public Procurement, Regional Integration, and the Belt and Road Initiative;GHOSSEIN;The World Bank Research Observer,2021
2. Flexible Institutionalization: A Critical Examination of the Chinese Perspectives on Dispute Settlement for the Belt and Road;WANG;Asia Pacific Law Review,2021
3. Editorial;LIU;The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law,2020
4. Introduction: Research Agendas Raised by the Belt and Road Initiative;D. SIDAWAY;Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space,2020
5. The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators;GUILLAUME;Journal of International Dispute Settlement,2011