IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The EU-China bilateral investment agreement in negotiation: Motivation, conflicts and perspectives

Listed author(s):
  • Bickenbach, Frank
  • Liu, Wan-Hsin
  • Li, Guoxue

Since January 2014 China and the European Union (EU) have been negotiating a comprehensive bilateral investment agreement. In contrast to the EU-US negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the ongoing negotiations between China and the EU have received little public attention so far. Still, a successful conclusion of these negotiations may be of great importance even beyond the EU-China investment relations. This holds in at least two respects. Firstly, a successfully concluded bilateral investment agreement may pave the way for a future EU-China free trade agreement. And secondly, looking beyond the bilateral relationship, the negotiations between the EU and China may make an important contribution to the establishment of a more liberal global investment framework. Currently, China is also negotiating an investment agreement with the US which is likely to take a similar form as that between China and the EU. In addition, provisions for the future liberalisation of bilateral investment flows are also an important part of the TTIP negotiations between the US and Europe. Rules and provisions, e.g., regarding market access, the prohibition of performance requirements or the transparency with respect to state-owned enterprises, that are part of all three agreements will "be elevated to a de facto global standard" (Berger 2014). Against this background, the present Kiel Policy Brief analyses the key barriers investors from China and the EU currently face in the EU and China, respectively and provides a brief assessment of whether and how these key barriers can be dealt with in the comprehensive EU-China investment agreement currently negotiated.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/121745/1/837867924.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in its series Kiel Policy Brief with number 95.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2015
Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkpb:95
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Kiellinie 66, D-24105 Kiel

Phone: +49 431 8814-1
Fax: +49 431 8814528
Web page: http://www.ifw-kiel.de/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Mario Mariniello, 2013. "The Dragon awakes: Is Chinese competition policy a cause for concern?," Policy Contributions 799, Bruegel.
  2. Berger, Axel & Busse, Matthias & Nunnenkamp, Peter & Roy, Martin, 2011. "More stringent BITs, less ambiguous effects on FDI? Not a bit!," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 270-272, September.
  3. Axel Berger & Matthias Busse & Peter Nunnenkamp & Martin Roy, 2013. "Do trade and investment agreements lead to more FDI? Accounting for key provisions inside the black box," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 247-275, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkpb:95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.