Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
China's International Investment StrategyBilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Julien Chaisse

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780198827450

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2019

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827450.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 13 October 2019

Use of Investor–state against China’s Enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law

Use of Investor–state against China’s Enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law

Belling the Panda?

Chapter:
(p.489) 26 Use of Investor–state against China’s Enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law
Source:
China's International Investment Strategy
Author(s):

Sungjin Kang

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827450.003.0027

Since China introduced the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008, China achieved an impressive competition law enforcement field record. However, lawyers and scholars still argue that Chinese competition authorities applied AML disproportionately against foreign companies. Despite the possibility of judicial reviews, many foreign companies still have reservation on the independent of judiciary of China, and they are still reluctant to appeal the decisions before the Chinese courts. In addition, there are some incidents where Chinese competition authorities used the AML to promote its own industrial policy. In this regard, foreign companies are not 100 per cent sure to trust the decisions of the Chinese competition authorities that they apply the AML fairly to safeguard the fair competition between Chinese companies and foreign companies. In this regard, foreign investors are trying to find a system to make sure that they are subject to ‘fair and equitable’ treatment or at least to ‘national treatment’ under the trade agreements between China and its major trading partners. The author is of the view that it is time for the foreign investors in China to consider the ISDS as an option to challenge procedural aspects of the Chinese competition law enforcements. By bringing an AML cases before the ISDS, foreign investors may induce Chinese competition authorities to comply with the due process and fair application of the competition laws, thus safeguarding transparency and predictability of the competition law enforcement of China.

Keywords:   Anti-Monopoly Law, foreign companies, competition, foreign direct investment, investor-state dispute settlement, multinational enterprises

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .