Research On The Investment Arbitration Case Of German Hale AG V. Chinese Government

According to the "Belt and Road" policy,the number of international investment agreements signed by the Chinese government is increasing,and the number of related cases of recourse to ICSID arbitration is also increasing.At present,this paper selects the third case of the Chinese government as the respondent in ICSID,also the only case that has entered the entity trial stage,Hela Schwarz Gmb H v.People’s Republic of China.Based on the summary of the legal issues involved in the case,combined with the claims of the parties,the award of the arbitration tribunal and related cases,the legal analysis is carried out in order to provide a certain reference for the ICSID of the existing system and the settlement path of investment disputes in China in the future.Now this article will start from five parts.The first portion is to sort out the basic case of Hela Schwarz Gmb H v.People’s Republic of China and summarize the legal aspects of the case.The second portion is to analyze whether the ICSID has jurisdiction.On the basis of the elements of ICSID jurisdiction,according to the relevant rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention and the principle of exhaustion of local remedies,the dispute over the jurisdiction clause of the China-Germany BIT Protocol is determined and analyzed.The conclusion that the ICSID should not have jurisdiction in this case is put forward.The third portion is to study whether the ICSID should introduce the emergency arbitrator system.On the basis of the general principles of the emergency arbitrator system,compare the Mohammed Munshi v.Mongolia case of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in Sweden and the GKML case of the Beijing Arbitration Commission.On the basis of the supplement of the emergency relief gaps before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the efficiency on the basis of justice,this paragraph is to prove ICSID rationality of introducing the emergency arbitrator system.This part analyzes the reasons why the application for temporary measures lost its practical significance in this case,and proposes the conclusion that ICSID should introduce the emergency arbitrator system.The fourth portion is to analyze whether the compensation measures of the Chinese government are appropriate.According to the elements of legality of the act of expropriation and the rationality analysis including the standard of compensation and the way of compensation,this paper puts forward the appropriate conclusion of the compensation measures of the Chinese government in this case.The fifth portion is to explore the implications of this case for ICSID existing system,host government and overseas investors.Aiming at the regulation of ICSID in the jurisdiction clause and the introduction of the emergency arbitrator system,and from the perspective of the host government and overseas investors,this paper provides suggestions to improve the relevant investment laws and regulations,to safeguard the corresponding legitimate rights and interests.