Catherine A. Rogers

The Role of Arbitration in Resolving Transnational Disputes: A Survey of Trends in the People's Republic of China

The purpose of this Essay is to provide investors and practitioners with a realistic overview of the strengths and limitations of international arbitration in China. Part I of this Essay provides some general comments about the economic, social, and cultural reasons why arbitration is a popular choice among both international investors and Chinese nationals. Part I concludes that arbitration can only provide a partial solution to the ills of China’s legal system. Part II examines how the observations in Part I manifest themselves in recent developments affecting arbitration in China. Part III examines the range of efforts by foreign investors and the U.S. Government to diminish and eventually remove limitations on arbitration in China.

Apparent Dichotomies, Covert Similarities: A Response to Joost Pauwelyn

In his thoughtful article, Joost Pauwelyn poses a perplexing question: How can it be that trade and investment are converging in their substantive “legal orders,” but diverging in terms of perceived legitimacy? Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), he argues, is in a “state of crisis” whereas World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement is generally regarded as “successful.” Pauwelyn’s provocative and counter-intuitive explanation for this paradox focuses on the apparent differences between the pool of decision-makers in each regime: WTO disputes are resolved by nameless, faceless, panel-inexperienced bureaucrats who often lack legal training, whereas “investment arbitrators are typically high-powered, elite jurists” with more expertise and experience than their WTO counterparts.