ICSID Arbitration Rules Of State-owned Enterprises As Qualified Investors

China's foreign investment has increased year by year,and investment disputes between Chinese foreign investors and host countries have increased.Beijing Urban Construction Group v.Yemen case is the first case of Chinese investor complaints in the field of construction,and it is also the first time that ICSID arbitration involves the identity of Chinese state-owned enterprises.State-owned enterprises are the main commercial investors of China's foreign investment.The study of this case will help to clarify the tribunal's rules of refereeing,and it will be of guiding significance for Chinese investors to use arbitration to protect their rights and interests in the future.Yemen argues that Beijing Urban Construction Group,as a state-owned enterprise,is an agent of the Chinese government and assumes governmental functions.It is not a qualified investor.Beijing Urban Construction Group states that it is a private entity and engages in commercial activities,so ICSID has jurisdiction.According to the Broches test,the tribunal focused on the nature of investor behavior and concluded that the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that Beijing Urban Construction Group is the agent of the Chinese government,discharging essentially governmental functions,and concludes that ICSID has jurisdiction.Some concepts of Broches test are still ambiguous,and there are still uncertainties in the identification of state-owned enterprises in the future.Chinese companies and governments should take measures to actively face this issue.Despite this,the tribunal's supporting the Beijing Urban Construction Group's proposition has a positive impact on the future foreign investment of Chinese investors.