IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarc/2egqd_v1.html

China's and India's Differing Investment Treaty and Dispute Settlement Experiences and Implications for Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Kidane, Won L.

Abstract

This Article examines China’s and India’s differing investment treaty and dispute settlement experiences and the resulting implications for Africa. It attempts to answer the question of whether there is evidence of China’s and India’s attempt to take advantage of the default structural imbalance enabled by centuries of international investment laws and institutions that favor the investor. The Article begins by presenting the background of the current economic reality and trends that necessitate the evaluation of the existing rules and institutions. It then presents a detailed assessment of this phenomenon by focusing on the investment cases brought against India for context, followed by a critical appraisal of India’s reaction to the perceived deficiencies of the existing system as evidenced by its new BIT Model Text and the text’s implications for Africa. Next, the Article evaluates the most important body of evidence that comes in the form of bilateral investment treaties, i.e., China’s and India’s investment treaties with African states. Finally, it offers a summary of conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kidane, Won L., 2026. "China's and India's Differing Investment Treaty and Dispute Settlement Experiences and Implications for Africa," LawArchive 2egqd_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:2egqd_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/2egqd_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6a4bf9019b6ad26d2bdf9685/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/2egqd_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:2egqd_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.