For the past forty years China has been developing its network of international investment agreements. While initially China followed the template set by contracting partner countries, it has increasingly adopted its own approach towards investment protection in treaty negotiations, in an attempt to translate its rapid economic growth into greater political and negotiating power. This aspiration is also visible in China’s domestic policy initiatives concerning inward investment, in particular its enactment of the Foreign Investment Law and its implementation of related measures, including exemptions from tax liability for certain reinvestments. China’s continued shaping of investment treaties in accordance with its own bespoke needs has the potential to influence the future development of international investment law worldwide. This chapter first summarizes the history of China’s investment treaty practice and its domestic policies concerning inward investment. It then looks at issues that have arisen in investment treaty arbitrations involving China (as a respondent) or its nationals (as claimants). Finally, it analyzes China’s proposals for international investment law reform.

The chapter traces the origins of the ICJ in its predecessor, the PCIJ, and then considers the Court’s core functions: deciding the disputes submitted to it and exercising its advisory functions. It also critically examines the Court’s functions in finding and developing the law, and in maintaining international peace and security.

This chapter explores forum choice at the international and regional levels, advancing three arguments. First, forum shopping as an arbitrary exercise or an exercise bordering on abuse of rights is rare. Second, parties nearly always have legitimate reasons for their forum choice. Factors impacting forum choice include receiving a favourable decision, the finality of that decision and the prospects for enforcement. As regulators, states should deal with the challenge of overlapping jurisdiction among international courts and tribunals (ICTs) by regulating forum choice explicitly. Third, ICTs have to assess the reasons proffered by the litigating parties, whereby they may consider precedent-setting and long-term repercussions, so as to accept or decline jurisdiction. Forum shopping can raise issues of legitimacy, fairness, cost and integrity. Forum choice, however, is a fundamental obligation of counsel to a client, in order to search for the tribunal or jurisdiction that will best recognize its rights, consistent with the fair administration of justice. Healthy competition between jurisdictions is overall beneficial to the evolution of ICTs.

The Registry of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has grown and adapted to the needs of the Court over the years, but its fundamental purpose has remained the same: to provide unobtrusive support to the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

Case managers in international arbitration include those working in dispute resolution institutions such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA),1 the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration (ICC),2 and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA):3 the officers of such institutions, tribunal secretaries, tribunal assistants and arbitrators’ assistants. These ‘unseen’ arbitral institutions and assistants form the foundations of efficient and effective dispute resolution,4 but their legitimacy has attracted significant controversy lately.5

For decades, people from all over the world have been speculating about Area 51. The thick veil of secrecy surrounding the Nevada military base has, over time, given rise to all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Smile at us, pass us or greet us; then, if you like, forget,

For we are the unseen actors, who have not spoken yet.

The interns, law clerks, jurists, of less than judicial rank,

Whom judges and arbitrators have nonetheless reason to thank.

Writing about the judiciary, Voermans asserts that its authority and legitimacy are no longer self-evident in democratic states.

They are the unsung heroes of international litigation … their proper functioning is absolutely vital for the effectiveness of the international adjudicative process.

International jurists pride themselves on keeping busy, and between permanent tribunal seats, ad hoc arbitral appointments, speaking engagements, writing, and teaching (among other activities), many do keep their calendars full.