All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

The China-Canada BIT, Its Shortcomings, and the Risks for Chinese Investors

DOI: 10.4236/blr.2019.102018, PP. 287-301

Keywords: China-Canada BIT, Risks, Investment Treaty Shortcomings

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Given the pre-existing political constraints and the inadequacy of legal tools, some risks, such as inflation, are difficult for the BIT to insure against. Other risks, such as those stemming from changing demographics, may be even less understood or are difficult to discuss. Yet, as the nationalisations of white-owned farmland in Africa remind us, Chinese property investors in Canada need to understand not only the safety mechanisms contained in the BIT but also the longer-term demographic, political and cultural trends which will shape the investment landscape. Ultimately, if demographics are destiny, then Canada shows many features which suggest it is slowly evolving into a new South Africa. This essay explores some of the seldom discussed risks associated with investing in Canada.


[1]  Aldrich, G. H. (1994). What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. The American Journal of International Law, 88, 585-610.
[2]  Dobson, W. (2014). China’s State-Owned Enterprises and Canada’s FDI Policy. The School of Public Policy Research Paper Series, 7.
[3]  Dolzer, R. (2002). Indirect Expectations: New Developments. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 11, 64.
[4]  Escarcena, S. L. (2013). Expropriations and Other Measures Affecting Property Rights in the Case of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Wisconsin Law Journal, 31, 177-207.
[5]  Fabri, H. R. (2002). The Approach Taken by the European Court of Human Rights to the Assessment of Compensation for Regulatory Expropriations of the Property of Foreign Investors. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 11, 155.
[6]  Geiger, R. (2002). Regulatory Expropriations in International Law: Lessons from Multilateral Agreement on Investment. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 11, 100.
[7]  Gutbrod, M. et al. (2009). Protection against Indirect Expropriation under National and International Legal Systems. Gottingen Journal of International Law, 1, 291.
[8]  Ho, S. P. S., & Huenemann, R. W. (1972). Canada’s Trade with China: Patterns and Prospects. Quebec: Canadian Economic Policy Committee.
[9]  Hogg, P. W. (2011). Constitutional Law of Canada (2011 Student Edition).
[10]  Merrill, T. W. (2002). Incomplete Compensation for Takings. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 11, 110.
[11]  Saku, J. C. (1999). Aboriginal Census Data in Canada: A Research Note. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XIX, 365-379.
[12]  Sedigh, H. (2001). What Level of Host State Interference Amounts to a Taking under Contemporary International Law. Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2, 631.
[13]  Van Harten, G. (2014). The Canada-China FIPPA: Its Uniqueness and Non-Reciprocity. Canadian Yearbook of International Law.
[14]  Weston, B. H. (1975). Constructive Takings under International Law: A Modest Foray into the Problem of Creeping Expropriation. Virginia Journal of International Law, 16, 103.


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us


微信:OALib Journal