Residential College | false |
Status | 已發表Published |
Is Investment Facilitation a Substitute or Supplement? A comparative analysis of China and Brazil Practices | |
Alternative Title | [A facilitação de investimentos é um substituto ou suplemento? Uma análise comparativa das práticas da China e do Brasil] |
WEI DAN1,2; Ning Hongling3,4 | |
2022-10 | |
Source Publication | Brazilian Journal of International Law |
ISSN | 2237-1036 |
Volume | 19Issue:2Pages:326-342 |
Abstract | While traditional investment protection regime is at the crossroad of reform, investment facilitation, which tackles ground-level obstacles to FDI and has no substantial challenges to regulatory space, is emerging as a new trend of global governance. Meanwhile, the content and method to implement investment facilitation are still evolving. The purpose of this article is to find the appropriate way to facilitate investment through comparative legal research between Brazil and China. Brazil and China share many similarities but adopt different approaches towards investment facilitation. Due to traditional resistance to BITs network, Brazilian developed a new model of investment treaty, i.e., Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA), focusing on investment facilitation rather than investment protection. China is a practitioner of investment facilitation as well as a proponent of IIAs with a balanced ISDS mechanism. It contends that the policy of investment facilitation is complementary to existing international investment regime. On the one hand, while investment protection and liberalization system are essential part of good business environment, IIAs don’t necessarily lead to friendly regulatory environment to attract FDI inflows. On the other hand, access to justice is still important to foreign investors, the policy of investment facilitation can’t act as a total substitute of traditional BITs worldwide. Therefore, it is suggested that China draws some experiences from Brazil in terms of institutional governance and establishing a similar and effective dispute prevention system, and China’s open and liberal policies are worth learning for Brazil considering the Brazilian investors’ increasing outbound investment and the growing needs of investment protection. |
Keyword | Investment Facilitation Investment Protection Cifa Fdi |
DOI | 10.5102/rdi.v19i2.8518 |
URL | View the original |
Indexed By | 其他Other |
Language | 英語English |
Publisher | CEUB |
Scopus ID | 2-s2.0-85147757251 |
Fulltext Access | |
Citation statistics | |
Document Type | Journal article |
Collection | DEPARTMENT OF MACAO LEGAL STUDIES |
Affiliation | 1.Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Macao 2.Law, Coimbra University, Portugal 3.Wuhan University, China 4.Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law, International Law, Heidelberg, Germany |
First Author Affilication | Faculty of Law |
Recommended Citation GB/T 7714 | WEI DAN,Ning Hongling. Is Investment Facilitation a Substitute or Supplement? A comparative analysis of China and Brazil Practices[J]. Brazilian Journal of International Law, 2022, 19(2), 326-342. |
APA | WEI DAN., & Ning Hongling (2022). Is Investment Facilitation a Substitute or Supplement? A comparative analysis of China and Brazil Practices. Brazilian Journal of International Law, 19(2), 326-342. |
MLA | WEI DAN,et al."Is Investment Facilitation a Substitute or Supplement? A comparative analysis of China and Brazil Practices".Brazilian Journal of International Law 19.2(2022):326-342. |
Files in This Item: | Download All | |||||
File Name/Size | Publications | Version | Access | License | ||
ceub 2022.pdf(1856KB) | 期刊论文 | 作者接受稿 | 开放获取 | CC BY-NC-SA | View Download |
Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
Edit Comment