ABSTRACT
In putting Asia’s role in international investment dispute settlement into a legal and political perspective, this chapter analyzes a number of landmark disputes and concludes with a critical account of the aggressive legalism thesis in favour of a more balanced approach of a truly universal international law. Chinese investors are claiming against Asian states with the 2010 Beijing Shougang and others v. Mongolia decided in favour of the state and the 2017 Sanum Investments v. Laos II. Also trying to gain confidence on the arbitration scene, China surprised many when one of its companies, Ping An, the most powerful insurance company in the world, brought a case against Belgium. Churchill Mining Plc and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia provides yet another fascinating illustration of unexpected developments in European Union–Asia investment dispute litigation. In Flemingo v. Poland, an Indian investor won, for the first time, against a European state.
