Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which Way Huawei? ISDS Options for Chinese Investors

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

Abstract

This chapter explores how recent moves by western nations to restrict the involvement of Chinese multinational Huawei in 5G telecoms development could give rise to investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) actions. China has been increasing its outgoing foreign investment and is now a player with global aspirations as evidenced in the Belt and Road Initiative (as well as remaining a major incoming destination for investment); yet Chinese investors have not made much use of ISDS provisions to defend their rights under investment treaties. Investment protections in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and other multilateral instruments were conceived as tools to protect western multinationals against errant behavior of developing host states. The chapter investigates the degree to which Chinese investors can now use the same protections to protest what they perceive to be discriminatory treatment by western host states on the grounds of national security, using the example of Huawei operations in western states. The chapter contributes to an evolving understanding of investment standards of protection, exceptions to protection on the basis of national security, as well as offering policy insight on the use and future trajectory of ISDS mechanisms in investment treaties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Peterson LE, Hepburn J (2019, February 11) Analysis: as Huawei invokes investment treaty protections I relation to 5G network security controversy, what scope is there for claims under Chinese Treaties with Czech Republic, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? IAReporter. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/analysis-as-huawei-invokes-investment-treaty-protections-in-relation-to-5g-network-security-controversy-what-scope-is-there-for-claims-under-chinese-treaties-with-czech-republic-canada-australia-a/

  2. 2.

    Arons S, Czuczka T (2019, December 14) China threatens retaliation should Germany Ban Huawei 5G. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-14/china-threatens-germany-with-retaliation-if-huawei-5g-is-banned. See also Slawotsky J (2019) National security exception in an era of hegemonic rivalry: emerging impacts on trade and investment. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore

  3. 3.

    Murmann JP, Huang C, Wu X (2018) Constructing large multinational corporations from China: East meets West at Huawei, 1987–2017. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10189

  4. 4.

    Zhu Z (2018) Going Global 2.0: China’s growing investment in the west and its impact. Asian Perspect 42:159–182, p 159. See also Chaisse J, Matsushita M (2018) China’s ‘Belt and Road’ initiative – mapping the world trade normative and strategic implications. J World Trade 52(1):163–186; Chaisse J (2018) The Belt and Road initiative – the law, the politics and the economics. Brill, London, 760 p

  5. 5.

    Amaro S (2019, November 15) China bought most of Greece’s main port and now it wants to make it the biggest in Europe. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/china-wants-to-turn-greece-piraeus-port-into-europe-biggest.html. See also Chaisse J (2019) China’s international investment law and policy regime – identifying the three tracks. In: Chaisse J (ed) China’s international investment strategy – bilateral, regional, and global law and policy. Oxford University Press, London, pp 1–22

  6. 6.

    Hook L, Sakoui A, Kirchgaessner S (2012, July 23) CNOOC heeds lessons of failed Unocal bid. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/bd0bc91a-d4e1-11e1-9444-00144feabdc0

  7. 7.

    Waibel M, Bonnitcha J, Skovgaard Poulsen L (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University Press, p 230

  8. 8.

    Huawei. https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/does-huawei-or-ren-zhengfei-have-ties-to-the-pla

  9. 9.

    Chung M, Mascitelli B (2014) Huawei’s battle: cold war or commercial war? Chapter. In: Ura DK, Ordoñez de Pablos P (eds) Asian business and management practices: trends and global considerations. IGI Publishing

  10. 10.

    Bartz D (2018, January 16) U.S. lawmakers urge AT&T to cut commercial ties with Huawei. Reuters. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-at-t-huawei-tech-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-lawmakers-urge-att-to-cut-commercial-ties-with-huawei-sources-idUKKBN1F50GX

  11. 11.

    Hanemann T, Gao C, Lysenko A, Rosen DH (2019) Sidelined: US-China Investment. US-China Investment Project Report. https://arraysproduction-0dot22.s3.amazonaws.com/rhodiumgroup/assets/icon/RHG_TWS-2019-1H_Report.pdf

  12. 12.

    National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2017, December). https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

  13. 13.

    Rogers M, Ruppersberger D (2012, October 8) Investigative report on the U.S. National Security issues posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE. US House of Representatives. https://republicans-intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/huawei-zte%20investigative%20report%20(final).pdf

  14. 14.

    supra 3

  15. 15.

    Shoebridge M (2018) Chinese cyber espionage and the national security risks Huawei poses to 5G networks. McDonald-Laurier Institute. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLICommentary_Nov2018_Shoebridge_Fweb.pdf

  16. 16.

    Sabbagh D, Mathilda Walters M (2020, February 19) US ‘very concerned’ over Huawei’s role in UK 5G network. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/19/us-very-concerned-over-huaweis-role-in-uk-5g-network

  17. 17.

    Sevastopulo D (2019, December 24) US warns Boris Johnson over Huawei risks to UK citizens’ secrets. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/686bfaf2-25d7-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134

  18. 18.

    Warrell H (2020, January 13) US presses Boris Johnson with new dossier on Huawei security risks. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/1d7f44b4-3643-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

  19. 19.

    Kelion L (2020, January 28) Huawei set for limited role in UK 5G networks. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51283059

  20. 20.

    Rosen D, Hanemann T (2011) An American open door? Maximising the benefits of Chinese foreign direct investment. Asia Society Special Report. https://asiasociety.org/files/pdf/AnAmericanOpenDoor_FINAL.pdf

  21. 21.

    Moran T (2009) Three threats: an analytical framework for the CFIUS process. Peterson Institute for International Economics

  22. 22.

    Rudegeair P, O’Keeffe K (2018, January 3) U.S. Bars Merger of MoneyGram, China’s ant financial. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/moneygram-and-ant-financial-halt-merger-deal-1514931496

  23. 23.

    Stephen Kirchner S, Mondschein J (2018) Deal-breakers? Regulating FDI for national security in Australia and the US. University of Sydney, p 6. https://united-states-studies-centre.s3.amazonaws.com/attache/e3/c2/6d/1b/52/55/a1/26/dc/dc/5b/f2/78/1a/1f/82/Regulating-foreign-direct-investment-for-national-security-in-Australia-and-the-United-States.pdf

  24. 24.

    Mascitelli B, Chung M (2019) Hue and cry over Huawei: cold war tensions, security threats or anticompetitive behaviour? Res Global 1:100002

  25. 25.

    supra 23, p 4

  26. 26.

    Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, Valenti M, De Luca A (2014) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, p 131

  27. 27.

    CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No ARB/01/08

  28. 28.

    Qureshi A, Ziegler T (2019) International economic law. Sweet & Maxwell, pp 631–635

  29. 29.

    supra 26

  30. 30.

    Jinping X (2014) The governance of China. Foreign Languages Press, p 222

  31. 31.

    Knight M (20.8.2018) Competition and consumer protection issues in communication, information, and media technology networks. Federal Trade Commission Submission https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2018/08/20/comment-ftc-2018-0049-d-1896

  32. 32.

    Lieberthal K, Jisi W (2012) Addressing US-China strategic distrust. China Centre at Brookings, Washington DC

  33. 33.

    Leaders (2012, August 5) The West should not fear Huawei. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2012/08/04/whos-afraid-of-huawei

  34. 34.

    Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (Decision and Order, 11.3.2002). For an analysis of national treatment, see Brar M (2019) The national treatment obligation: law and practice of investment treaties. In Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    See also Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1 and Mexico v. United States (US Trucking Case) (Final Report 6.2.2001) USA-MEX-98-2008-01

  37. 37.

    Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuerp C (2012) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, p 291

  38. 38.

    Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain. ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7

  39. 39.

    supra 37, p 367. See also Chaisse J, Kirkwood J (2020) Chinese puzzle: anatomy of the (invisible) Belt and Road investment treaty. J Int Econ Law 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz047

  40. 40.

    Ibid., p 296

  41. 41.

    United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998, at para 158.

  42. 42.

    supra 34 at para 78–79

  43. 43.

    supra 37, p 297

  44. 44.

    supra 36

  45. 45.

    Glinavos I (2018) Brexit, the City and options for ISDS. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 33(2):380–405

  46. 46.

    supra 37, p 300

  47. 47.

    Peters A, Högger D, Fassbender B (2014) The Oxford handbook of the history of international law. Oxford University Press. See also Laryea ET (2020) Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: concept and scope of application. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore

  48. 48.

    L.F.H. Neer and Pauline Neer (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, Award (15 October 1926), (1946) Vol. IV Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 60–66.

  49. 49.

    Merrill and Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1

  50. 50.

    Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2

  51. 51.

    NAFTA Free Trade Commission, ‘Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions’ (31 July 2001) B1-2

  52. 52.

    Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States of America, UNCITRAL (Award 8 June 2009)

  53. 53.

    supra 45, p 392

  54. 54.

    International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL (Award 26 January 2006)

  55. 55.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8

  56. 56.

    Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, De Luca A (eds) (2014) General interests of host states in international investment. law. Cambridge University Press, p 42

  57. 57.

    AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award (23 September 2010)

  58. 58.

    Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, para 291

  59. 59.

    Total S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, fn79, 119

  60. 60.

    Glinavos I (2016) Public interests, private disputes: investment arbitration and the public good. MJIEL 13(1):50–62

  61. 61.

    Chaisse J (2015) Demystifying public security exception and limitations on capital movement. Univ Penn J Int Law 37:583, 601; Chaisse J, Kirkwood J (2020) Chinese puzzle: anatomy of the (invisible) Belt and Road Investment treaty. J Int Econ Law 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz047

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p 596

  63. 63.

    Schreuer C, Dolzer R (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, p 202

  64. 64.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18

  65. 65.

    Total SA v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/04/01

  66. 66.

    Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL (Award 28 April 11)

  67. 67.

    SD Myers, Inc v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (Award 30 December 2002)

  68. 68.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8

  69. 69.

    See LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, and LG&E International, Inc v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/1; and Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL (Award 3 August 2005)

  70. 70.

    Schefer K (2016) International investment law, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar

  71. 71.

    Slawotsky J (2018) The national security exception in US-China FDI and trade: lessons from Delaware corporate law. Chin J Comp Law 6(2):228–264

  72. 72.

    International Law Commission (2006) Draft articles on state responsibility. United Nations

  73. 73.

    Hungary v. the Slovak Republic (Gabcikovo-Nagymaros), 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Reports 7, 40.

  74. 74.

    Ago R (1980) Addendum to the eighth report on state responsibility, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1980/Add.1 (Part 1) 19

  75. 75.

    Crawford J (1999) Second report on state responsibility. UN General Assembly, International Law Commission Doc A/CN.4/498/

  76. 76.

    Glinavos I (2014) Haircut undone? The Greek drama and prospects for investment arbitration. J Int Dispute Settle 5(3):475–497, p 14

  77. 77.

    International Law Commission (2001) Articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. United Nations

  78. 78.

    supra 27

  79. 79.

    supra 27, para 324

  80. 80.

    Agius M (2009) The invocation of necessity in international law. Neth Int Law Rev 56(2):95–135, p 99

  81. 81.

    Subedi S (2008) Investment law, reconciling policy and principle. Hart, p 185. See also Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections – general exceptions clause as a forced perspective. Am J Law Med 39(2/3):332–361; Qian X (2018) Challenges of water governance (and privatization) in China-traps, gaps, and law. Georgia J Int Comp Law 1:49–91

  82. 82.

    Rose-Ackerman S, Billa B (2007–2008) Treaties and national security. NYU J Int Law Pol 40:437, p 465

  83. 83.

    Ibid., p 469

  84. 84.

    Schill S, Briese R (2009) ‘If the state considers’: self-judging clauses in international dispute settlement. Max Planck YB United Nations Law 13(1):61, p 64

  85. 85.

    Kithardis S (2014) The unknown territories of the national security exception: the importance and interpretation of art XXI of the GATT. Aust Int Law J 21:79, p 83

  86. 86.

    UNCTAD (2020) Investment Policy Hub. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/country-navigator/45/china. See also Du M, Shen W (2020) The future of investor-state dispute settlement: exploring China’s changing attitude. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore; Trakman L (2019) Resolving the tension between state sovereignty and liberalizing investor-state disputes: China’s dilemma. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore; Chaisse J, Oloaye K (2020) The tired dragon: casting doubts on China’s investment treaty practice. Berkeley Bus Law J 17(1):134–193; Chaisse J (2019) China’s international investment strategy – bilateral, regional, and global law and policy. Oxford University Press, London, 560 p

  87. 87.

    Berger A (2008) China’s new bilateral investment treaty programme: substance, rational and implications for international investment law making. German Development Institute. https://www.diegdi.de/uploads/media/Berger_ChineseBITs.pdf

  88. 88.

    Heymann M (2008) International law and the settlement of disputes relating to China. J Int Econ Law 11(3):507–526. See also Qian X (2018) Challenges of water governance (and privatization) in China-traps, gaps, and law. Georgia J Int Compa Law 1:49–91

  89. 89.

    Fauchald OK, Lindmark F (2020) So many treaties, so few disputes? Explaining China’s absence from investment arbitration, Chapter. In: Behn D, Fauchald OK, Langford M (eds) The legitimacy of investment arbitration: empirical perspectives. Cambridge University Press

  90. 90.

    See cases Señor Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6; China Heilongjiang International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp. Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company Ltd., and Qinhuangdaoshi Qinlong International Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Mongolia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2010-20; Ping An Life Insurance Company, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company, Limited v. The Government of Belgium, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29; Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-13; Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ADHOC/17/1; Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/30; Sanum Investments Ltd. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Sanum II), ICSID Case No. ADHOC/17/1, 2017; Wuxi T. Hertz Technologies Co. Ltd., and Jetion Solar Co. Ltd. v. Greece, ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration, 2019.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., p 1

  92. 92.

    Ibid., p 38

  93. 93.

    Sanger D, McCabe D (2020, February 17) Huawei is winning the argument in Europe, as the U.S. Fumbles to develop alternatives. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/us/politics/us-huawei-5g.html

  94. 94.

    Bowler T (2020, March 10) Huawei: is it a security threat and what will be its role in UK 5G? BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47041341

  95. 95.

    Greene J, Tibken S (2012, October 8) Lawmakers to U.S. companies: don’t buy Huawei, ZTE. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/news/lawmakers-to-u-s-companies-dont-buy-huawei-zte/

  96. 96.

    Office of Public Affairs (2020) Department of Commerce asks for public input on Huawei temporary general license extensions. US Department of Commerce. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/03/department-commerce-asks-public-input-huawei-temporary-general-license

  97. 97.

    Hendel J (2020, February 27) Congress approves $1B for rural telecom companies to ditch Huawei. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/27/congress-huawei-telecom-117963

  98. 98.

    Czuczka T, Arons S (2019, December 14) China Threatens Retaliation Should Germany Ban Huawei 5G. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-14/china-threatens-germany-with-retaliation-if-huawei-5g-is-banned

  99. 99.

    Ibid., p 93

  100. 100.

    European Commission (2020, January 29) Secure 5G networks: commission endorses EU toolbox and sets out next steps. Press Release. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_123

  101. 101.

    Giorgetti C (2014) Litigating international investment disputes, a practitioner’s guide. Brill

  102. 102.

    Salacuse J (2015) The law of investment treaties. Oxford University Press, p 26

  103. 103.

    Collins D (2011) Applying the full protection and security standard of international investment law to digital assets. J World Invest Trade 12(2):225–244

  104. 104.

    Nagel v. Czech Republic, SCC Case 49/2002, Award (9 September 2003), 2004(1) Stockholm Arb. Rep. 141

  105. 105.

    Snodgrass E (2006) Protecting investors’ legitimate expectations: recognizing and delimiting a general principle. ICSID Rev FILJ 21(1):10

  106. 106.

    Burgstaller M (2020) Definition of investment in international investment law. UK Practical Law. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-501-5427

  107. 107.

    Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No Arb/00/04

  108. 108.

    Deutsche Bank AG v. Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/09/02, para 294

  109. 109.

    Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3

  110. 110.

    Garcia A (2013) ICSID tribunal considers Salini criteria. UK Practical Law. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-525-4681

  111. 111.

    Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8

  112. 112.

    Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18

  113. 113.

    DIW Econ (2019) Der ökonomische Fußabdruck von Huawei in Deutschland. https://www-file.huawei.com/-/media/corporate/local-site/de/image/huawei-in-deuschland/oct_2019/diw-econ-2019-oekonomischer-fussabdruck-huawei-in-deutschland-kurzfassung.pdf?la=de

  114. 114.

    AES Corporation v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17

  115. 115.

    UNCTAD (2012) ISDS: UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II, p 12. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeia2013d2_en.pdf

  116. 116.

    Ibid. 45, p 394. See also Chaisse J, Donde R (2018) The state of investor-state arbitration – a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. Int Lawyer 51(1):47–67

  117. 117.

    Ripinsky S, Williams K (2015) Damages in international investment law. BIICL

  118. 118.

    Ibid., 27

  119. 119.

    Devaney M (2012) Leave it to the valuation experts? Society of international economic law. Working Paper 2012/06. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2087777

  120. 120.

    Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, para. 420

  121. 121.

    Fry J (2007) International human rights law in investment arbitration: evidence of international law’s unity. Duke J Comp Int Law 18(1):77–149, 85

  122. 122.

    Cohen-Smutny A (2006) Principles relating to compensation in the investment treaty context. IBA Annual Conference, p 2. https://www.josemigueljudice-arbitration.com/xms/files/02_TEXTOS_ARBITRAGEM/01_Doutrina_ScolarsTexts/investment_arbitration/compensation_in_inv_treaties-_abbey_cohen_smutny.pdf

  123. 123.

    OECD (2004) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulation in international investment law. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2004/4. https://doi.org/10.1787/780155872321

  124. 124.

    Ibid. 117, p 12

  125. 125.

    Wendrich C (2005) The World Bank guidelines as a foundation for a global investment treaty: a problem-oriented approach. Trans Dispute Manag 5

  126. 126.

    Glinavos I (2014) Haircut undone? The Greek drama and prospects for investment arbitration. JIDS 5(3):475–497

  127. 127.

    Helvey D (2020, February 3) Europe and the US must stand together on China. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a47faf4a-42b3-11ea-9a2a-98980971c1ff

  128. 128.

    Wintour P (2020, February 15) US defence secretary warns Huawei 5G will put alliances at risk. The Observer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/us-defence-secretary-warns-us-alliances-at-risk-from-huawei-5g

  129. 129.

    Peel M, Warrell H, Chazan G (2020, February 16) US warns Europe against embracing China’s 5G technology. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/19fa7046-4fe5-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1

  130. 130.

    Hecht G (2011) Entangled geographies: empire and technopolitics in the global cold war. MIT Press

  131. 131.

    Chan CL (2015) Fallen behind: science, technology, and soviet statism. Intersect 8(3)

  132. 132.

    Politi J (2019, December 5) Former World Bank president faults Trump’s China policy. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/289409bc-16d5-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385

  133. 133.

    Yang Y, Liu N (2019, December 8) Beijing orders state offices to replace foreign PCs and software. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/b55fc6ee-1787-11ea-8d73-6303645ac406

  134. 134.

    Glinavos I (2018) In praise of limiting democracy: a defense of ISDS. VerfBlog. https://verfassungsblog.de/in-praise-of-limiting-democracy-a-defense-of-isds/

  135. 135.

    European Commission (2020) Legislative train schedule: a balanced and progressive trade policy to harness globalisation. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-balanced-and-progressive-trade-policy-to-harness-globalisation/file-multilateral-investment-court-(mic)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Westminster, London, UK

    Ioannis Glinavos

Authors
  1. Ioannis Glinavos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Glinavos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Glinavos, I. (2020). Which Way Huawei? ISDS Options for Chinese Investors. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_113-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_113-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation