Suchergebnisse

Mit der Aussicht auf eine intensivierte chinesisch-europäische Beziehung als Resultat des aktuell noch auszuhandelnden bilateralen Investitionsabkommens sowie der engeren Vernetzung durch das chinesische Megaprojekt der "Neuen Seidenstraße" stehen dem globalen Investitionssystem aufregende Zeiten bevor. Vor dem Hintergrund der laufenden Reformierung des scharf kritisierten Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahrens durch die Kommission der Vereinten Nationen für internationales Handelsrecht könnte der künftige Investitionsvertrag zwischen China und der EU als Vorreitermodell für eine neue Generation bilateraler Investitionsabkommen dienen, der ferner den Weg ebnet für einen neuen modus operandi betreffend der Schlichtung von Streitigkeiten zwischen Investoren und einem Staat. Nach einer Analyse der Investitionsvertragspraxis Chinas und einer Skizzierung der diversen vorhandenen Streitbeilegungsmechanismen in der Region der Neuen Seidenstraße scheint es naheliegend, dass China – in seiner flexiblen Vertragsgestaltungspraxis – mit der EU übereinkommt in dem seitens der EU vorgeschlagenen, innovativen bilateralen Gerichtshof für Investitionsstreitigkeiten. Die Verfasserin hält als Kompromisslösung jedoch die Einführung einer ständigen Berufungsinstanz für deutlich praktikabler als die eines zweistufigen Investitionsgerichtssystems. Die erste Instanz der Streitbeilegung bliebe damit den durch die Parteien gewählten Institutionen überlassen. Demzufolge würde das vorgeschlagene Gerichtssystem zumindest mittelfristig nur eine weitere, ergänzende Option zur Beilegung von Investitionsstreitigkeiten entlang der Neuen Seidenstraße bieten. ; The prospect of an enhanced relationship between China and the European Union as resulting from, first, their future bilateral investment treaty and, second, the closer interconnection produced by China's Belt and Road Initiative holds exhilarating possibilities for the global investment regime. Given that the United Nations Commission on Trade Law is currently working on reforming the harshly criticized instrument of investor-state dispute settlement, the foreseeable China–EU treaty might represent a model for a new generation of bilateral investment treaties, which also paves the way to a new fashion of settling investment disputes. Upon assessing China's investment treaty practice and with a view to the various dispute settlement mechanisms in place, it seems likely that China, consistent with its flexible treaty-making manner, will find common ground with its European counterpart on the innovative establishment of a permanent bilateral investment court – as desired by the EU. The author, however, deems compromise on the implementation of a unified appellate mechanism, as opposed to a two-tiered standing court system, much more feasible, leaving the first instance of investor-state dispute settlement to the institutions chosen by the parties. Thus, the Investment Court System might just be a complementary dispute resolution option in the Belt and Road Region, at least in the medium term.

China is a country that is rich in antiquities, but it is also a victim of looting that occurred during the period from the First Opium War to the end of the Japanese Occupation (1840-1945) when innumerable cultural objects were lost overseas. The Chinese Government insists on asserting its interest over its wrongfully removed cultural heritage and has sought for the return of lost cultural heritage by all means in accordance with relevant international conventions and Chinese laws. However, securing the return has been, and continues to be, problematic. Little research has been done regarding the question as to whether China has a legal basis for recovery, which is the first legal hurdle that China needs to get over. In addition, China does not have a legal basis for all cultural heritage taken during the period of 1840-1945. Claims for return without a legal basis are usually silenced or, at best, discussed only but very rarely facilitated. This book provides an answer for the return of Chinese cultural heritage. It examines the law contemporaneous to the removal of Chinese cultural heritage and its application. For this lack of a legal basis, this book argues that a new customary international law is emerging, according to which the interests of the states of origin in their wrongfully removed heritage should be prioritised. This proposed customary rule supports the return of wrongfully removed heritage. Once this proposed customary rule is accepted, it will provide a stronger argument not only for China, but also for other states of origin with a similar dilemma, including South Korea, Egypt, Greece, Cambodia, Turkey, Peru, and Italy, to recover their wrongfully removed heritage. While dealing with a large pool of return cases, this book is valuable to museums and art collectors in the event of buying and accepting art objects, and settling recovery disputes with states of origin. It will also be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers, and students in the fields of cultural heritage law, international law, international trade, and human rights law.

Introduction -- States of origin and cultural heritage -- Availability of a legal basis for the return of China's cultural heritage -- Customary international law -- Return of cultural heritage looted during armed conflicts -- Return of cultural heritage stolen and illegally exported in peacetime -- Evolving social and ethical norms : practice of individuals, private museums, and auction houses -- Return of historically removed heritage.

Introduction -- States of origin and cultural heritage -- Availability of a legal basis for the return of China's cultural heritage -- Customary international law -- Return of cultural heritage looted during armed conflicts -- Return of cultural heritage stolen and illegally exported in peacetime -- Evolving social and ethical norms : practice of individuals, private museums, and auction houses -- Return of historically removed heritage