The great career of Global South-South Coalition has just entered its fifties, if we take the establishment of Group 77 in 1964 as its origin. For the past five decades, the course of SSC has seen its ups and downs. Confucian philosophy of China advocates for a comprehensive self-reflection every decade, so as to comb past experience for the sake of future self-improvement. At this historical turning point, it is of necessity to retrospect, while bearing contemporary international economic circumstances in mind, the SSC’s past accomplishments and difficulties, in order to re-affirm people’s confidence of this long-term strategy, and to avoid tactical short-sightedness. In this way, the career of Global SSC could hopefully get ready to sail out once again for new accomplishments. For Chinese scholars, it is also their responsibility to review the New China’s self-positioning on the course of SSC, and to make the world academia hear a voice from China.

The great career of Global South-South Coalition has just entered its fifties, if we take the establishment of Group 77 in 1964 as its origin. For the past five decades, the course of SSC has seen its ups and downs. Confucian philosophy of China advocates for a comprehensive self-reflection every decade, so as to comb past experience for the sake of future self-improvement. At this historical turning point, it is of necessity to retrospect, while bearing contemporary international economic circumstances in mind, the SSC's past accomplishments and difficulties, in order to re-affirm people's confidence of this long-term strategy, and to avoid tactical short-sightedness. In this way, the career of Global SSC could hopefully get ready to sail out once again for new accomplishments. For Chinese scholars, it is also their responsibility to review the New China's self-positioning on the course of SSC, and to make the world academia hear a voice from China.

The great career of Global South-South Coalition SSC has just entered its fifties, if we take the establishment of Group 77 in 1964 as its ori-gin.For half century, in order to eradicate the unfairness and injustice embedded in the old international economic order and legal rules, to fight for a better devel-opment environment, through wholehearted cooperation and joint action, the Global South has won some achievements, yet not without encountering a num-ber of difficulties.For the past five decades, the course of SSC has seen its ups and downs.Confucian philosophy of China advocates for a comprehensive self-reflection every decade, so as to comb the past experience for the sake of future self-improvement.At this historical turning point, it is of necessity to retrospect SSC's past accomplishments and difficulties.Contemporary international econom-ic circumstances should also be combined to revalue those ups and downs, so as to re-affirm the confidence of this long-term strategy, and to avoid tactical short-sightedness.In this way, the career of Global SSC could absorb the learned wis-dom and rebuild the original confidence, then ready to sail out once again for new accomplishments at the age of “knowing the decrees of Heaven”.For Chinese scholars, it is also necessary and a responsibility to retrospect the New China's self-position on the course of SSC, so as to provide another kind of experience from the aspect of an involving developing country.It is noteworthy to point out that China has since 2008 taken the lead in participating and promoting the BRICS countries'activities to applaud and embrace the reformation of 0IE0. Such pioneering undertaking has reached a new height, as in 2014 the world has seen a substantial breakthrough in reforming the international financial regime. The New Development Bank of BRICS countries is expected to usher in a whole new system to compete with the World Bank and IMF, which could be taken as a newly generated breeze that is now gently blowing from the above of duckweed “风起[2]青萍之末” , with a possibility to start a chain reaction and to cause the Butterfly Effect, and evolves eventual y into a powerful hurricane.Such metaphor is also a powerful evidence for a possible bright future of the course of South-South col ective self-reliance.

Some FDI dispute settlement provisions in Sino-foreign BITs are open to question. In future negotiations, for seeking benefits and avoiding harms, China needs to keep a clear mind, stand on its own national situations, learn lessons from international practices, enhance its sense of risk, uphold the rights authorized by international conventions, and flexibly use the four authorized rights as “safeguards.” Thus, China should distinguish the North and the South countries, properly grant differential reciprocity treatment, and explicitly exclude the general application of the MFN clause to FDL dispute settlement procedures. To achieve that, China needs to strike for proper balances between “absorbing FDI inward” and “promoting CDI outward” and between protecting the legitimate rights of foreign investors and safeguarding the sovereignty and essential security of the host country, so as to play a model role for developing countries.

In China, the issue of nationalization of foreign investment appears, at first sight, to be a very remote problem but in fact it is a question of great urgency.

Is international trade the guarantor of peace, liberty, and security? In my view, the answer to this question can be in either way: Yes! or No! To be brief, if international trade is conducted on the basis of equity and mutual benefit, it can be the guarantor of global peace, liberty, and security. However, if international trade is based on inequity and unilateral selfishness, it can otherwise be the destroyer of peace, liberty, and security and even the motivation of war—not only trade war but real war with fire, cannons, and bombs!

The rapid development of China’s economy not only has upgraded its international economic rank, but also has accelerated its pace of outward investment. Meanwhile, China and several dozens of other developing countries are stuck in a disadvantageous status caused by consequent remarks, such as that “China is no longer a developing country”, that “the perspective of South-North Contradictions is already outdated and should be abandoned during the process of concluding BITs and establishing international economic rules in general”, etc. However, the rationale and accuracy of these remarks as well as the exact meaning hidden behind all remain open to question. This Article, from the source and stream of South-North Contradictions and modern BITs, focusing on the typical example of two core provisions selected from the newly concluded 2012 Sino-Canada BIT , endeavors to demonstrate that the “perspective of South-North Contradictions” cannot and should not be abandoned during the process of BIT negotiations and establishing international economic rules in general.

China’s defined long-term policy of pursuing socialist construction involves economic reform aimed at more open external contact and brisk internal economic activity. Following important changes and developments in the economic situation since 1979, China’s economic legislation, including that involving foreign elements, has also shown significant changes from its originally incomplete state to its presently more complete and systematic state.

Foreign investment in China is, at once, an issue of great age and great youth. Against the historical backdrop of Western exploitation during the second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, and policies alternating between shutting out or accepting foreign investment, China’s leaders have now determined that the “awakening Giant” can withstand and prosper with the help of foreign investment while relying on China’s own efforts. But will China treat her business guests with traditional hospitality or so-called xenophobia after they have entered the door? This chapter examines China’s developing legal framework for absorbing foreign investment and comments on the emerging legal threshold at China’s door.

There is no consensus among domestic and foreign law scholars regarding the exact connotation and denotation of the science of international economic law, among which a narrow and broad approach of interpretation can be recognized as relatively popular. This article endeavors to conduct a concise analysis and comment towards such two approaches of interpretation and to demonstrate that international economic law, as an interdisciplinary marginal synthesis, generally refers to all legal norms that adjust international economic relations. It is further discussed in the latter parts of this article that there are close connections as well as clear distinctions in between international economic law and other relative legal departments as public international law, private international law, domestic economic law, and international business practices. Through this article, the author stresses that upright and impartial law scholars in China and other developing countries should carefully learn, independently select, digest, and absorb relating knowledge and experiences from Western powers after simply taking over them, i.e., taking their essence and discarding their dregs. And furthermore, they should have the courage and resolution to create and gradually establish a novel theoretical system of IEL discipline which exactly reflects the common stand of the many Third World countries and takes on Chinese characteristics.

This is actually an “Expert’s Legal Opinions” for use in a specific arbitral case. During early November 2006, Chen & Co. Law Firm provided this expert (the author) with major documents (approximately 220 pages) concerning the case, Zhonghe Co. v. Bunge Co. The said law firm put forward the questions on Chinese laws and English laws in connection with this case. This expert (the author) assumed that these documents were all true and believable and made the following analysis and comments strictly based thereon as well as related Chinese law. In other professional words popular in China, that is, strictly “taking facts as the basis, and taking laws as the criterion” (以事实为根据,以法律为准绳), the author’s conclusion is as follows: (1) In accordance to correct understanding of “application of English laws,” Chinese mandatory rules which are fully respected by English laws shall be the proper law (or applicable law) in this case. (2) Therefore, due to the fact that Bunge, as the beneficiary of the disputed letter of credit, was legally prohibited to export Brazilian soybean into China, and that Chinese banks could not and dared not, in violation of the laws and prohibitive rules, to open a letter of credit with Bunge as the beneficiary, the relevant Contract S04-071 was frustrated. (3) Consequently, Zhonghe Co. was entitled to rescind the contract.

Please refer to the previous Expert’s Legal Opinion on Zhonghe v. Bunge Case which had been issued by the author on 1 November 2006, compiled as Chapter 22 here within this book.

An investor from Hong Kong, Mr. Tza Yap Shum, applied for ICSID’s arbitration on the allegation that the host state Peru Government took expropriation of his fish flour company. It was reported that this is the first Chinese investor submitting a dispute against a host state to ICSID for arbitration since 1993 when China formally acceded to the ICSID Convention. The main issue then focused on whether the ICSID’s Tribunal is competent for the jurisdiction on the disputed case. It mainly depends upon whether the China–Peru Bilateral Investment Agreement of 1994 could be directly applied to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under “one country, two systems.” Recently on 19 June 2009, the ICSID Tribunal issues a Decision on Jurisdiction, maintaining that the tribunal has jurisdiction on and is competent for the specific case. However, this article, from a jurisprudential perspective, finds that the tribunal has no jurisdiction on and is not competent for the specific case. Consequently, the said DECISION is incorrect, unreasonable, and unacceptable.