New from Oxford University Press: China’s International Investment Strategy Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy

China’s International Investment Strategy
Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy
International Economic Law Series

Edited by Julien Chaisse

9780198827450
This collection, compiled by award-winning scholar Professor Julien Chaisse, explores the three distinct tracks of China’s investment policy and strategy: bilateral agreements including those with the US and the EU; regional agreements including the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific; and global initiatives, spear-headed by China’s presidency of the G20 and its ‘Belt and Road initiative’. The book’s overarching topic is whether these three tracks compete with each other, or whether they complement one another – a question of profound importance for the country’s political and economic future and world investment governance.

Features

• Combines legal, economic and international relations perspectives, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the subject
• Brings together a group of experts in the field, exploring the most recent issues in international trade law
• A variety of illustrations support and elucidate the contributors’ arguments.

Table of Contents
Forward, Zhao Hong
Introduction: China’s International Investment Law and Policy Regime- Identifying the Three Tracks, Julien Chaisse
1: China’s Inward Investment: Approach And Impact, Michael J. Enright
2: China’s Outward Investment: Chinese Enterprise Globalization’s Characteristics, Trends, and Challenges, Hui Yao Wang and Lu Miao
3: Impact of Tax Factors on Chinese FDIs, Na Li
4: SOE Investments and The National Security Protection: Implications For China, Lu Wang
5: Nationwide Regulatory Reform Starting From China’s Free Trade Zones: The Case Of Negative List Of Non-Conforming Measures, Jie (Jeanne) Huang
6: Addressing Sustainable Development Concerns through IIAs: A Preliminary Assessment of Chinese IIAs, Manjiao Chi
7: Lessons Learned from The Canada-China FIPA For The US-China BIT And Beyond: Chinese Whispers Or Chinese Checkers?, Kyle Dylan Dickson-Smith
8: Innovation as a Catalyst in the China-Israel Investment Relationship:The China-Israel BIT (2009) and the Prospective FTA, Hadas Peled and Marcia Don Harpaz
9: Drivers and Issues of China-EU Negotiations for A Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, Flavia Marisi and Qian Wang
10: Issues on SOEs in BITs: The (Complex) Case of the Sino-US BIT negotiations
11: Towards A Fourth Generation of Chinese Treaty Practice: Substantive Changes, Balancing Mechanisms, And Selective Adaption, Matthew Levine
12: Substantive Provisions of East Asian Trilateral Investment Agreement and Their Implications, Won-Mog Choi
13: The RCEP Investment Rules and China: Learning From the Malleability of Chinese FTAs, Heng Wang
14: Towards an Asia-Pacific Regional Investment Regime: The Potential Influence of Australia and New Zealand as a Collective Middle Power, Amokura Kawharu and Luke Nottage
15: A New Era in Cross-Strait Relations? A Post-Sovereign Enquiry in Taiwan’s Investment Treaty System, Horia Ciurtin
16: China Moves The G20 Toward An International Investment Framework And Investment Facilitation, Karl P. Sauvant
17: G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policy-Making: A Stepping Stone for Multilateral Rules on Investment, Anna Joubin-Bret and Cristian Rodriguez Chiffelle
18: Beware of Chinese Bearing Gifts: Why China’s Direct Investment Poses Political Challenges in Europe and the United States, Sophie Meunier
19: The Political Economy of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment in “One-Belt, One-Road (OBOR)” Countries, Ka Zeng
20: China’s Role And Interest In Central Asia: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Manzoor Ahmad
21: The International Fraud & Corruption Sanctioning System: The Case of Chinese SOEs, Susan Finder
22: He Who Makes the Rules Owns the Gold: The Potential Ramifications of The New International Law Architects, Joel Slawotsky
23: Investment Treaty Arbitration in Asia: The China Factor, Matthew Hodgson and Adam Bryan
24: Investment Disputes Under China’s Bits: Jurisdiction with Chinese Characteristics?, Jane Willems
25: Protecting Chinese Investment Under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Regime: A Review In Light Of Ping An V Belgium, Claire Wilson
26: Use Of Investor-State Against China’s Enforcement of The Anti-Monopoly Law: Belling The Panda?, Sungjin Kang
27: Implementing Investor-State Mediation in China’s Next Generation investment Treaties, Shu Shang

For more details, please visit the OUP dedicated page.

Chinese SOE Investment: An Economic Statecraft

Bashar H. Malkawi*

China’s rising economic preeminence has been stunning, firmly ensconcing China as the second most powerful world economy replacing previously second-ranked Japan. In a remarkably short span, less than 15 years, the US economy has experienced a relatively huge decline vis-à-vis China on a nominal GDP basis.

China’s remarkable economic juggernaut has been fueled by an opening of markets, globalization and booming free trade which has provided immense financial benefit to Chinese companies. The free market open rules trading system led to the establishment of China as a major global exporter. As China’s economy has boomed, China has looked increasingly abroad for investment opportunities to both employ its cash hoard and provide long-term growth for its citizens.

In China, many large companies are state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and are the most common form of entity that are involved investment. Chinese SOEs receive preferential treatment in terms of access to capital and obtaining regulatory approvals[1] and are employed in the advancement of Chinese governmental aims “serv[ing] political goals, including fostering indigenous innovation, supporting social stability and crisis response in China, and advancing economic initiatives abroad such as ‘One Belt, One Road.’”[2]

By definition, all SOEs raise concerns because of their connection to their home states. These anxieties over state-owned businesses are not unique to China and relate to all SOEs in general. Investments made by states trigger different regulatory sensitivities compared to considerations raised by private companies because of the possibility that in conducting business government owned or controlled entities may utilize non-profit motivations and substitute political ambitions instead of or in addition to profit-making.

Thus, these concerns are tied to any government-owned business which potentially subjugates (or at a minimum is an additional motivation) private market interests to the political interests of the state.[3] Indeed, such concerns are not entirely new. As an illustration of prior concerns with respect to government-owned businesses and their investment decisions was the opposition over Dubai Ports’ attempt to invest in the U.S.  In 2007, the Dubai government-owned Dubai Ports World sought to acquire port terminals located in the U.S.  Members of the U.S. Congress, concerned about a foreign government controlling the flow of goods and people into the U.S. voiced strenuous opposition on national security grounds.[4] In this respect, Chinese SOEs are no different than other state-owned businesses.

However, there are additional factors with respect to China’s SOEs which increase national security concerns of FDI recipient nations; China’s political structure and unique state dominance/control of SOEs presents a different type of investor.  China is a communist economic order and the state is purposely directly involved in all critical economic sectors. “The way that the Chinese government exercises ‘state capitalism’ is that it directly or indirectly controls a large number of powerful SOEs, especially in the strategic and key sectors.”[5]

The raison d’être of the Chinese SOE is the advancement of the CCP’s objectives thus amplifying the general “state-ownership” concerns. China is ruled by one political party, the CCP, and its domination of Chinese SOEs is of critical importance.  The CCP wields near total non-financial control over its citizenry; singularly legislates the law of the land and CCP appointed judges rule on the interpretation of law in courts. These facts are not meant as a criticism of China which has expressed no intent of aggressively advancing such goals. Nevertheless, Chinese SOEs may have motivations that align with CCP goals and those aims may not necessarily correlate with other countries’ national interests.

While the U.S. government also wishes to advance its geo-political goals, the key distinction is that the U.S. government’s pursuit of policies is not part of private U.S. company investment decision making.  In evaluating FDI from U.S. companies, the presumption is the decision to invest is 100 percent profit motivated; but the same cannot be said of Chinese SOE investment. It is thus crucial to internalize that Chinese SOEs related investments may very well harbor an agenda to advance strategic goals for the CCP. These concerns can be expected to grow.  The CCP is apparently strengthening its control over SOEs.

The potential motivation to further the goals of an alternative vision of global governance by a private entity investing and buying companies is a very different context for review than traditional corporate acquirers. In addition, investments and joint ventures from SOEs may not be an efficient allocation of resources or be a profit-generator.[6] If investments are not based upon pure economic motivations, the investments may prove to be less than stellar performers or at a minimum, fail to achieve the potential return. Crucially, such motivations bring potential economic risk/loss of potential into the calculus for a recipient nation.

China has acknowledged the crucial need to reform its inefficient SOEs and doing so would lend confidence to recipient nations and lower concerns.[7]  However, economic considerations have not trumped political considerations. Rather than utilizing pure economic factors as the benchmark for SOE reform, political factors are considered which may impinge on the profit-making calculus private sector companies engage in.[8] In terms of enacting reforms to China’s SOEs, economic performance is surely a factor but not the controlling factor as it would be in a private sector business. This demonstrates that SOE investment in other countries may potentially be made based at least in part upon non-economic factors.  The fact that some SOEs investments may not have pure economic profit as the driving factor may constitute an inefficient allocation of financial resources and economic potential in addition to raising security concerns.

Although FDI is acknowledged as beneficial and an important enabler of economic vitality, many governments are concerned about national security implications of FDI. Chinese FDI has come under more stringent scrutiny in recent years sparked by political. concerns about foreign ownership in Europe and the U.S. Some in the U.S. have urged a complete ban on Chinese SOE investment. It is not only the U.S. that has signaled a reassessment is being considered. The EU has also expressed concerns regarding China’s FDI into the EU and the associated national security risks of OBOR-driven investment.  EU diplomats gave expressed “suspicions ran deep over China’s geopolitical intentions in Europe, particularly with its massive trade and infrastructure plan, the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’.

In the U.S., CFIUS is the primary vetting mechanism and wields power to review a “covered transaction,” defined as any merger, acquisition or takeover … by or with any foreign person which could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States.  The term “national security” is not strictly defined and CFIUS focuses on certain strategic national security spheres such as energy, defense and technology.[9]  The U.S. President is specifically empowered to “suspend or prohibit any covered transaction that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.” In every other country, a CFIUS style review mechanism is an option that should be examined as a potential solution to the upcoming challenges of increasing Chinese investment worldwide.


* Bashar H. Malkawi is Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. He holds S.J.D in International Trade Law from American University, Washington College of Law and LL.M in International Trade Law from the University of Arizona.


[1] See Wendy Leutert, China’s Reform of State-Owned Enterprises, 21 ASIA POLICY 83, 86 (2016).

[2] Id.

[3] See Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions and Other Foreign Government Investments in the United States: Assessing the Economic and National Security Implications: Testimony Before the Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 110th Cong. 4 (2007) (testimony of Edwin M. Truman, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), available at http://
banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_
id=e4fe589e-90aa-46e0-afe9-lefb57fcd69c.

[4] See Bashar H. Malkawi, Balancing Open Investment with National Security: Review of U.S. and UAE Laws with DP World as a Case Study, 13 The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review 153, 161 (2011).

[5] Julien Chaisse, Demystifying Public Security exception and Limitations on Capital Movement: Hard Law, Soft Law and Sovereign Investments in the EU Internal Market, 37 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 583

[6] See, e.g., Debt risk for main state-owned enterprises is controllable: China, THE ECONOMIC TIMES (India) (Jan. 27, 2017), http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/56806126.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=t ext&utm_campaign=cppst (“While many state companies are bloated and inefficient, China has relied on them more heavily over the past year to generate economic growth in the face of cooling private investment.”)

[7] For an excellent discussion of SOE reforms see Wendy Leutert, supra note 1.

[8] See id. Wendy Leutert, China’s Reform of State-Owned Enterprises, 21 ASIA POLICY 83, 86 (2016), available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Wendy-Leutert-Challenges-ahead-in-Chinas-reform-ofstateowned-enterprises.pdf.

[9] See https://www.wsgr.com/CFIUS/pdf/section-721.pdf (noting the list of factors CFIUS will consider include defense, energy and technology). Note there are calls to expand the list of areas.  See https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/senators-stabenow-and-grassley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-protect-american-agricultural-interests-in-foreign-acquisitions (proposal to add food security to list).

 

Across the Strait: The Case for a Special EU-Taiwan Trade and Investment Partnership

 

by Horia Ciurtin LL.M., Managing Editor of the EFILA Blog*

Not Just a Bridgehead: Mercantile Reflections on EU’s Taiwan Position

 At the crossroads of global trade, Taiwan represents a hot spot that unites the flows of goods and capital from near mainland China, from the South-East Asian cauldron, as well as a bridgehead for Western transoceanic commerce and investment. Not truly an island (in the sense of isolation), but a focal meeting point between two seas and an (open) ocean, Taiwan strategically lies in one of the best positions in opening up the Asian markets to larger influxes of EU-based products and capital.

Economically speaking, the relation between the supra-national European entity and the quasi-national Taiwanese one presents quite balanced trading features and a totally asymmetric degree of FDI. Thus, according to the 2015 EU Factfile on the matter, in 2014, while Taiwan exported goods and services in value of around 26.5 billion EUR to the European conglomerate, the EU exported somewhat less to Taiwan, around 22 billion EUR. On the other hand, the FDI situation is reversed in respect to the two actors: while the investment flows originating from the EU rise to approximately 0.8 billion EUR (9.1 billion stocks), those of Taiwan going to Europe are of 0.1 billion EUR (1.1 billion stocks).

In this regard, the European Union is the most prominent investor in Taiwan, representing nearly 25% of all the FDI received by the insular entity. The striking disequilibrium between the investment flows in and out of Taiwan is paradoxical in the conditions in which this particular Asian economy invests in other parts of the world at a much higher level (for example in the Caribbean, its investments flows are 4 times higher than in the EU) or at a similar level with its EU investments, despite not receiving the same investment inputs (for example, in Vietnam or Japan). Moreover, when looking at the accumulated investments in the 1952-2014, it appears that the EU ranks first in Taiwan, while the island’s investment in the EU is only the 7th destination of its funds, ranking far below the Caribbean zone, the US, Singapore or Vietnam.

This asymmetric investment relation between EU and Taiwan takes place in the context of a European adherence to a formal strict One China policy, in line with its member states and transatlantic allies. No political or diplomatically ties are officially admitted among the two entities, in deference to China’s position toward the Taiwanese islands. The strategical factor here plays a fundamental role. It was not until the China-Taiwan relations were formalized in the cross-strait agreements in 2010 that the EU actively began to approach Taiwan in search for a bilateral arrangement.

Muddying the Waters: Hermeneutic Reflections on the EU’s Taiwan Position

Later on, in 2013, the Parliament mandated the Commission to seek ways to accommodate these geopolitical imperatives with a more economic-oriented perspective. At a first glance, a complete warming-up was appearing on the Taiwanese horizon. The rhetoric seemed to go beyond what is usually expected when dealing with Taiwan and its uncertain legal status, portraying a future relation from authority to authority (and not informal-commercial surrogates) and an institutional grounding.

However, as always, the devil is in the details. In this case, the language details of the resolution. Thus, the Parliament’s formal acknowledgement reveals the limits of such a mandate and the caveats it intrinsically implies. When confronted with the Chinese ‘elephant in the room’, the drafters feel the need to justify their decision on the PRC’s approach to enter itself into such prior agreements with Taiwan. Moreover, the resolution states that “whereas closer economic ties with Taiwan do not in any way contradict the EU’s ‘one China’ policy” and that “the decision to start such negotiations with Taiwan should be based on economic reasons, and should not be interlinked with an assessment of relations between the EU and the People’s Republic of China”.

A continuous hesitation of the EU side to assume the initiative subsists in the entire document. It heavily relies on other states’ decision to do so, on the multilateral framework of which Taiwan is already a part (WTO, for example) or – the crown-jewel of justificatory rhetoric – the normalization of China-Taiwan relation and the mainland’s prior recourse to such agreements. We did it just because others did it. Even China did it.

Hermeneutic analysis reveals an indecisive language, far below the intensity expected even in diplomatic documents. The emphasis on the purely economic dimension of the relation is relevant. No trade and investment treaty is simply economic. And everybody knows it. It is also strategic and a geopolitical statement. By formally – and vehemently – denying it such value, any future agreement is left in a mercantile limbo, deprived of symbolic – and effective – power. Among the risks of not being clear enough is not being able to settle a conflict once it occurs.

Simply economic, without a diplomatic – and, yes, political – dimension, the possibility of such a treaty appears as a rhetorical exercise. Two contracting parties with only ‘business interests’ and no identifiable political relation are not really playing the ‘great’ game of international relations. And no subsequent enforceability of their agreement might arise. Muddy (legal) waters allow no divers, no swimmers and no steady flux of boats to carry goods across them.

Beyond Sovereignty: An Interaction with Systemic Stakes

The truth is that the EU should not be afraid of institutionalizing its relations with Taiwan. From a legal point of view, none of them is truly and traditionally a ‘sovereign’. None of them can be – at the moment – perfectly circumscribed within the Westphalian system. And no actual risk exists for the individual state entities involved in the international agora. Rather, such a post-sovereign mode of interaction might open the possibilities of a different systemic configuration: supra-national entities contracting with quasi-national ones in a newly found order. Beyond the sovereign state.

On the other hand, the EU’s reluctance (as that of its member states or the US) to formally institutionalize its engagement with Taiwan is simply a historical and circumstantial position that lives on by inertia. In the post-Cold War environment where everybody rushed to admit Kosovo to the new ‘concert’ of states, Taiwan’s uncertain status lingers without any principled reason. By itself, such a decision was bound to upset major powers (i.e. Russia), even cause discord within the community of the EU member states, to trouble the fragile order of the Balkans even more. However, there was no impediment in going further in this direction and even considering the possibility of a future Kosovo accession to the EU.

In the same fashion, there is a significant support from EU institutions for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, continuously urging for its future recognition despite vehement Israeli opposition. Of course, Taiwan’s situation is less tragic and incommensurately more complex, but it poises similar conceptual problems regarding recognition.

While understandable for classical sovereigns, such a hesitant position appears paradoxical when stemming from the EU, the self-styled postmodern entity that was to break away with Vattel’s system. In its assumed mission of using ‘soft power’ and moving away from frivolous geopolitical calculations, the EU appears as the most likely source for taking the debate a step further in the Taiwan case. Given the 2016 elections in which the DPP party won the presidential campaign, it might be possible that Taiwan’s rhetoric of autonomy rises in intensity, rather than decreases. In such conditions, it is interesting to see how the EU reacts to a legitimate desire for self-determination of a democratic community.

The post-sovereign reality of EU itself could present the Western states a chance to nuance their position towards Taiwan. The European colossus is not in any acute danger of being excluded from commerce with the discontent actors. It only faces an immediate period of diplomatic pressures (both from competitors and allies), but its irreplaceable locus is not threatened in any fundamental way. However, failing to live up to its promises as a benevolent and avant-garde hegemon might damage its reputation and the reach of EU ‘soft power’.

Moreover, the interaction of two entities that are ‘deviant’ from the classical assumptions of Westphalian sovereignty might not cause too much of a turmoil. It can – at any moment – be presented as a rather ‘exotic’ and unrepeatable manner of establishing relations in the international agora. The broad – and decoupled – mandate of the Commission might preserve the image of its member states in front of virtual Sinic dissatisfaction. The Commission did it. Not us.

On the other hand, the manner in which the EU can interact with Taiwan might not really disrupt the Westphalian status quo in an essential manner, as it is able to speak a language very different from that of sovereignty. Therefore, the established relations neither need to conform to traditional diplomatic categories of sovereign-to-sovereign parlance, nor do they have to resort to informal surrogates of such institutions. A different, post-sovereign and non-statist mode of interaction can emerge. EU can thus accommodate Taiwan’s need for recognized autonomy without bringing into discussion the notion of sovereignty or its diplomatic corollary. Such a new type of relation would appear as one that maintains EU’s rhetorical coherence and does not threaten China’s position.

The Win-Win Perspective: (Not Only) Trade and Investment

In this sense, a proper way forward could take the form of a fully-assumed trade and investment treaty, of a comprehensive instrument regulating international business flow. This would be consistent with EU’s active policy of signing expansive FTAs over the world (take, for example, the EU-Vietnam FTA, the EU-Singapore FTA or the highly-debated CETA and TTIP). Its negotiation power would be higher than with most other contracting parties, offering EU the opportunity to implement its wildest innovations in the field of ISDS and investment protection.

However, such an agreement would be of little use if the avoidant language of diplomatic-surrogates is deployed. The existing mode of interaction (for example, in the India-Taiwan BIT, the Thailand-Taiwan BIT, Vietnam-Taiwan BIT) places the agreement under the aegis of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office/Centre and its corresponding institution from the other state. This type of ‘treaties’ serves no practical purpose when confronted with the harsh reality of cross-border investment. Take, for example, the anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam where numerous Taiwanese individuals and businesses were also strongly affected. The threat of using the Vietnam-Taiwan BIT (improperly called so) brought on no true reaction from the other side, as the Vietnamese officials knew all too well the limits of such an agreement. As did the Taiwanese side.

With no possibility of further using the ICJ if arbitration fails, Taiwan is left in a legal limbo. The ‘representative offices’ signing such agreements in a quasi-official capacity do not really create binding obligations under international law. At least not truly enforceable. And thus such ‘BITs’ are left at the will and whim – or idealistically said, at the good-will – of the other party to accept the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. And then to voluntarily comply with the outcome of the arbitral proceedings.

In reality, the EU needs to move further from this existing model of interaction. But neither go in the opposite direction of engaging in an endless – and, finally, sterile – discussion about sovereignty. As a post-sovereign hegemon of global caliber, the EU is able to treat Taiwan in its ‘eccentric’ manner and establish a sui generis type of interaction. One that does not avoid direct institutional and formal relations, but also does not get entangled in the Westphalian vocabulary of inter-state connections.

From a mercantile perspective, this would also permit EU to bolster its SME focus as Taiwan presents itself as a success story of small businesses that sustain a vibrant market economy. Its democratic institutions (although quite new and imperfect, but not unlike those of some Eastern EU member states) are a guarantee for the relative degree of fairness in treating foreign investors and complying with its commitments. In addition, once allowing the access of Taiwanese investors on a more comprehensive level on the European market, the disequilibrium of outbound and inbound investment might ameliorate and help the EU diversify its sources of capital.

On the other hand, the Taiwanese subsidiaries of EU companies would largely benefit from Taiwan’s position and – in the safe harbor of a stable and free market environment – could expand in the near South-East Asian zone while avoiding some of the inherent turbulence of the area. Their double quality (of EU origin and Taiwanese operational mechanisms) would allow the European companies to take all the benefits of working from such a privileged geographic and political position, as well as circumventing the problems of being a purely Taiwanese economic entity.

And thus – symbolically – both EU and Taiwan would gain from such a bargain, allowing the European entity to advance its systemic agenda of transforming international relations and permitting Taiwan to escape its uncertain status. In this win-win scenario, the only major loser is the notion of sovereignty. A concept that seems to function rather erratically in our multipolar world. For these reasons, the sovereignty discussion would not be put under silence because it is uncomfortable, but rather because both parties – postmodern entities – regard it as irrelevant for their relation. A sui generis interaction. At the twilight of Westphalia.



 * Horia Ciurtin, Managing Editor, EFILA Blog; Legal Adviser – International Arbitration, Scandic Distilleries S.A; Editor, VERSO Journal [Romania]; Freelance researcher [see SSRN author page].