The International Commercial Court of the People’s Republic of China and the BRICS Economic Dispute Resolution Mechanism

This paper examines the role and significance of interstate associations such as the Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS within the context of the current crisis in the politico-economic system of interstate relations and institutions. They are characterized as new types of state associations that build relationships based on equality, mutual respect for national interests, mutually beneficial economic cooperation, and the resolution of economic disputes. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the concept and practical steps taken by China to establish the International Commercial Court of the People’s Republic of China under the Belt and Road Initiative. It explores the distinctive features and innovative solutions employed by the court to enhance the efficiency of resolving disputes involving individuals and organizations from member states. The paper concludes that it is both fundamentally possible and necessary to apply similar innovations to the institutions and procedures for handling commercial and investment disputes within BRICS, a topic that has recently gained significant traction in legal scholarship and practice. Proposals are being made on the organizational form and operating procedure of the BRICS International Center for the Settlement of Economic Disputes.

1. Chaisse J, Qian X. Conservative Innovation: The Ambiguities of the China International Commercial Court. AJIL Unbound. 2021;115:17-21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2020.81.

2. Gavrilov VV. Education and the international legal personality of the ASEAN Plus Three Forum. Lex russica. 2013;95(8):875-883. (In Russ.).

3. Łągiewska M. International Dispute Resolution of BRI-Related Cases: Changes and Challenges. Journal of Contemporary China. 2024;33(149):809-822. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2022.2117981.

4. Long F. Innovation and Development of the China International Commercial Court. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law. 2020;8(1):40-44. (In Russ.). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa014.

5. Pakerman AG. The International Investment Arbitration Center of the BRICS Group: The interregional mechanism of our time. Pravo mezhdu Vostokom i Zapadom. 2024;4:32-44. (In Russ.).

6. Qian X. The legal legitimacy of the China International Commercial Court: history, geopolitics, and law. Asia Pacific Law Review. 2020;28(2):360-379. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2020.1856310.

7. Shanshan Y, Tao D. The Jurisdiction of China International Commercial Court: Substance, drawbacks, and refinement. Journal of Private International Law. 2024;20(1):183-213. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2024.2338627.

8. Skvortsov OYu. On BRICS Investment Arbitration. Evraziiskaia integratsiia: ekonomika, pravo, politika. 2023;17(1):89-97. (In Russ.). Available at: https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-2929-2023-01-89-97.

9. Sun X. A Chinese Approach to International Commercial Dispute Resolution: The China International

10. Commercial Court. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law. 2020;8(1):45-54. (In Russ.). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa015.

11. Thanadsillapakul L. Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Open Regionalism in Asia: A Case Study of ASEAN. East Asian Regionalism from a Legal Perspectives: Current Features and a Vision for the Future. Nakamura T, ed. London and New York: Routledge; 2011. P. 125–146.

12. Wei Cai, Godwin A. Challenges and Opportunities for the China International Commercial Court. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2019;68(4):869-902. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000332.

13. Yamamoto Y. Institutionalization in Northeast Asia: Is outside-in regionalization enough?Institutionalizing Northeast Asia: Regional Steps towards Global Governance. Timmermann M., Tsuchiyama J, editors. New York: United Nations University Press; 2008. P. 21–42.