经中国国际贸易促进委员会和福建省人民政府批复同意，报福建省司法厅备案登记，中国海事仲裁委员会在福建省厦门市设立中国海事仲裁委员会海上丝路仲裁中心（以下简称“中国海仲海丝仲裁中心”）。2023年3月30日，在第七届国际调解高峰论坛开幕期间，中国海仲海丝仲裁中心正式揭牌运行。

中国海仲海丝仲裁中心将充分发挥中国海事仲裁委员会的专业法律服务优势，立足厦门，对接海峡两岸，服务全国，辐射东南亚，联动亚非拉，着力推进机制创新，强化人才保障，积极推动将厦门建设成为“国际争议解决优选地”，助力区域涉外法律服务软环境建设，为“一带一路”建设保驾护航。

With the approval of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade and the Fujian Provincial People's Government, and with the registration of the Fujian Provincial Department of Justice, the China Maritime Arbitration Commission has established the Maritime Silk Road Arbitration Center of China Maritime Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CMAC Maritime Silk Road Arbitration Center") in Xiamen, Fujian Province. On 30 March 2023, during the opening of the 7th International Mediation Summit, the CMAC Maritime Silk Road Arbitration Center is officially inaugurated.

The CMAC Maritime Silk Road Arbitration Center will give full play toits advantages in professional legal services of China Maritime Arbitration Commission, based in Xiamen, connect the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, serve the whole country, radiate Southeast Asia, link Asia, Africa and Latin America, focus on promoting mechanism innovation, strengthen talent support, actively promote Xiamen as the "preferred international dispute resolution place", help to build a soft environment for regional foreign-related legal services, and will escort the construction of "the Belt and Road Initiative".

2023年4月1日，中华人民共和国最高人民法院与新加坡最高法院共同签署《通过诉中调解框架管理“一带一路”倡议背景下国际商事争议的合作谅解备忘录》（以下简称《合作谅解备忘录》）。

《合作谅解备忘录》旨在促进中新两国友谊，推动共建“一带一路”高质量发展，为当事人提供灵活、创新和高效的争议解决方式，加强中新两国最高法院在“一带一路”国际商事争议管理方面的合作。

《合作谅解备忘录》对诉中调解框架的制定和实施、与其他各方的合作、信息共享、诉中调解框架的特征、诉中调解示范条款、其他事项等六方面内容进行了规定，自签署之日起生效。

The Supreme Courts of China and Singapore Signed an MOU on Cooperation on the Management of International Commercial Disputes in the Context of Belt and Road Initiative through a Litigation-Mediation-Litigation Framework

On 1 April 2023, The Supreme Court of Singapore and China jointly signed Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation on the Management of International Commercial Disputes in the Context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through a Litigation-Mediation-Litigation (LML) Framework (hereinafter referred to as the "MOU").

The MOU aims to promote friendship between China and Singapore, facilitate the high-quality development of BRL, and provide flexible, innovative and efficient dispute resolution for the parties, strengthen cooperation between Supreme Courts of China and Singapore in the management of international commercial disputes in the context of BRL.

The MOU stipulates six aspects including the formulation and implementation of LML framework, cooperation with other parties, information sharing, features of LML framework, model provisions of LML and other matters, which shall come into effect from the date of signing.

随着加入“一带一路”倡议的国家和国际组织不断增加，越来越多的商事主体选择仲裁化解纠纷。为给商事主体选择仲裁机构提供科学参考，2023年4月13日，英国杜伦大学国际争端解决研究所研究制定并与华南理工大学法治经济与法治社会研究中心联合发布了“一带一路”沿线国际仲裁机构公信力评价报告及公信力排行榜（以下简称“评价报告和排行榜”）。

本次参评的仲裁机构共38家，其中亚洲21家、欧洲8家。根据评估结果得出的评价报告和排行榜显示，所有仲裁机构的平均得分为6.68分，最高得分8.99分，最低为5.49分，其中香港国际仲裁中心和新加坡国际仲裁中心作为传统的国际仲裁中心位居前两位，广州仲裁委员会、维也纳国际仲裁中心、迪拜国际仲裁中心名列第三到第五位。

此次评价报告和排行榜的发布将有助于提升区域仲裁机构间合作竞争意识和专业化水平，以构建多层次、多元化的争端解决机制，互鉴和完善区域间仲裁机构规则对接和统一，为区域间经贸合作和纠纷解决建议提供良好的营商环境。

The First Global Ranking of the Credibility of International Arbitration Institutions along the Belt and Road Released

As more countries and international organizations join the Belt and Road Initiative, more and more commercial entities choose arbitration to resolve disputes. In order to provide scientific reference for commercial entities to choose arbitration institutions, on 13 April 2023, Durham International Dispute Resolution Institute formulated and jointly eleased a Credibility Assessment Report and Ranking of the Crediility of International Arbitration Institutions along the Belt and Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Report and Ranking") with the Research Center for the Rule of Law, Economy and the Law-based Society of the South China University of Technology.

A total of 38 arbitration institutions participated in the evaluation, of which 21 are in Asia and 8 in Europe. According to the Assessment Report and the Ranking, the average score of all arbitration institutions was 6.68, with the highest score being 8.99 and the lowest 5.49. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), as traditional international arbitration centers, ranked in the top two positions, while the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (GAC), the Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC) and the Dubai International Arbitration Center (DIAC) ranked third to fifth.

The Assessment Report and the Ranking are conducted by internationally renowned arbitration experts, lawyers and judges to consider the credibility of international arbitration institutions from multiple perspectives and positions, so as to make an objective and fair assessment. The release of the Assessment Report and the Ranking of Credibility will help to raise the awareness of cooperation and professionalism among regional arbitration institutions, to build a multi-level and diversified dispute resolution mechanism, to learn from each other and improve the alignment and harmonisation of the rules of inter-regional arbitration institutions, and to provide a good business environment for inter-regional economic and trade cooperation and dispute resolution proposals.

法律依据：

《仲裁法》

第二十条

当事人对仲裁协议的效力有异议的，可以请求仲裁委员会作出决定或者请求人民法院作出裁定。一方请求仲裁委员会作出决定，另一方请求人民法院作出裁定的，由人民法院裁定。

当事人对仲裁协议的效力有异议，应当在仲裁庭首次开庭前提出。

《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》

第十三条

依照仲裁法第二十条第二款的规定，当事人在仲裁庭首次开庭前没有对仲裁协议的效力提出异议，而后向人民法院申请确认仲裁协议无效的，人民法院不予受理。

仲裁机构对仲裁协议的效力作出决定后，当事人向人民法院申请确认仲裁协议效力或者申请撤销仲裁机构的决定的，人民法院不予受理。

案情简介：

2018年1月29日，上海合璟景观规划设计有限公司（以下简称“合璟公司”）与苗夫生态建设有限公司临邑分公司（以下简称“苗夫临邑分公司”）签订《建设工程设计合同》。因履行该合同项下争议，合璟公司于2018年12月13日向上海仲裁委员会（以下简称“仲裁庭”）申请仲裁，请求：1、苗夫临邑分公司向合璟公司支付设计费；2、苗夫生态建设有限公司（以下简称“苗夫公司”）对苗夫临邑分公司的上述债务承担共同清偿责任。苗夫临邑分公司在仲裁中答辩称，合璟公司并未完成合同中设计费用；苗夫公司在仲裁中答辩称，同意苗夫临邑分公司的答辩意见。

仲裁庭对关于合同效力及苗夫临邑分公司的仲裁主体问题作出认定。苗夫临邑分公司虽不具有独立的法人资格，但以自己的名义签订合同，支付款项并收取发票，表明其在注册登记后已形成组织机构并实际具有可处分的财产，符合可以作为仲裁当事人的条件。在仲裁中，苗夫临邑分公司、苗夫公司均未对分公司参加仲裁活动表示异议，故仲裁庭对苗夫临邑分公司参与仲裁案审理的主体地位予以确认。

仲裁庭于2021年2月25日作出（2019）沪仲案字第0204号裁决（以下简称“仲裁裁决”）：一、苗夫临邑分公司支付合璟公司设计人员工资和差旅费、设计费；二、苗夫公司就苗夫临邑分公司未能履行第一项裁决主文确定债务的部分承担补充支付义务。

2021年6月17日，苗夫公司作为申请人，列合璟公司为被申请人，向上海市第一中级人民法院（以下简称“法院”）提出申请，要求撤销仲裁裁决。理由是：苗夫公司与合璟公司之间没有仲裁协议。案涉合同的当事人是苗夫临邑分公司与合璟公司，苗夫公司并非合同当事人。苗夫临邑分公司作为依法设立并取得营业执照的分支机构，有权在经营范围及总公司授权范围内开展经营并签署合同，具有诉讼和仲裁资格。只有苗夫临邑分公司不能履行仲裁裁决的债务时，才能通过追加或变更被执行人的法定程序，将苗夫公司列为执行案件的被执行人来承担补充责任。被申请人合璟公司答辩称，不同意苗夫公司的撤裁申请，苗夫公司不但参加了仲裁审理，还曾提出仲裁反请求。因此，苗夫公司实际已接受仲裁管辖。

法院观点：

关于苗夫公司提出的其与合璟公司之间没有仲裁协议的这一撤裁理由，法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第二十条第二款的规定和《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》第十三条的规定，合璟公司与苗夫临邑分公司之间已签订仲裁协议。苗夫公司参加仲裁审理后，并未就其与合璟公司不存在仲裁协议提出异议。相反地，苗夫公司曾向仲裁庭提出反请求，实质是表示接受仲裁庭对本案的管辖。苗夫公司在仲裁中并未就仲裁协议效力提出异议，现苗夫公司又以其与合璟公司不存在仲裁协议为由要求撤销仲裁裁决，法院不予支持。

综上，法院依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第五十八条第一款、第六十条，《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》第十七条之规定，裁定驳回申请人苗夫公司的申请。

Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court:

Where an Arbitration Agreement is Entered into with a Branch Office, if the Head Office Actively Defends itself as the Respondent in the Arbitration, it Cannot Later Request the Revocation of the Arbitration Award on the Grounds that it is not the Subject of the Arbitration

Legal Basis:

Arbitration Law 

Article 20

Where the parties concerned have a differing opinion upon the validity of an arbitration agreement, a request may be made for an award to be made by the arbitration commission or a judgment made by the People's Court. Where one party requests an award to be made by the arbitration commission and the other party requests a judgment from the People's Court, it shall be judged by the People's Court.

Where the parties concerned have a differing opinion upon the validity of an arbitration agreement, this shall be raised before the arbitration tribunal commences the first hearing.

Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues relating to Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 13

Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Arbitration Law, where a party has not objected to the validity of an arbitration agreement before the opening session of hearings conducted by the arbitration tribunal, but the party subsequently applies to the people's court to determine the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, the people's court shall not hear such a case.

Where an arbitration agency has decided on the validity of an arbitration agreement and a party subsequently applies to the people's court to determine the validity the arbitration agreement or overturn the decision of the arbitration agency, the people's court shall not hear such a case.

Case Description：

On 29 January 2018, Shanghai Hejing Landscape Planning and Design Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hejing Company") entered into a Construction Engineering Design Contract with Linyi Branch of Miaofu Ecological Construction Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company"). Due to the disputes arising from the performance of this contract, Heijing Company applies for arbitration to Shanghai Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal") on December 13, 2018, requesting: 1. Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company shall pay the design fee to Heijing Company; 2. Miaofu Ecological Construction Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the "Miaofu Company") shall be jointly liable for the above debts of Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company. Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company argued that the Hejing Company had not completed the design fee in the contract, while Miaofu Company argued that it agreed with Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company's defence.

The Arbitral Tribunal made a finding on the issue of the validity of the contract and the subject matter of the arbitration of Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company. Although Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company did not have an independent legal personality, it signed the contract in its own name, paid the money and received the invoice, indicating that it had formed an organisational body after registration and actually had disposable property, which met the conditions to be a party to the arbitration. In the arbitration, Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company and Miaofu Company did not object to the branch's participation in the arbitration activities, so the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the subject status of Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company in the arbitration case.

On 25 February 2021, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered (2019) Huzhong Case No. 0204 Award (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Award"): 1. Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company shall pay the wages, travel expenses and design fees of the designers of Heijing Company; 2. Miaofu Company shall undertake supplementary payment obligations in respect of the failure of Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company to fulfil the debts determined in the main text of the first clause of the Arbitral Award.

On 17 June 2021, Miaofu Company, as the Claimant, listed Heijing Company as the Respondent and filed an application with the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Court") to set aside the Arbitral Award. The reason was that there was no arbitration agreement between Miaofu Company and Hejing Company. The parties to the contract in question were Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company and Hejing Company, and Miaofu Company was not a party to the contract. As a branch office legally established and licensed to operate, Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company was entitled to operate and sign contracts within the scope of its business and the authority of the head office, and was eligible for litigation and arbitration. Only if Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company was unable to fulfil its obligations under the arbitration award, Miaofu Company can be listed as the executor to the enforcement case through the statutory procedure of adding or changing the executor to bear the supplementary liability. The Respondent, Hejing Company, argued that it disagreed with Miaofu Company's application for dismissal of the case, and that Miaofu Company had not only attended the arbitration hearing, but had also filed a counter-claim for arbitration. Therefore, Miaofu Company had actually accepted the arbitration jurisdiction.

Court’s View:

With regard to Miaofu Company's claim that there was no arbitration agreement between 

Miaofu Company and Hejing Company, the Court held that, according to the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 13 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues relating to Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, Linyi Branch of Miaofu Company has entered into an arbitration agreement with Hejing Company, after participating in the arbitration hearing, Miaofu Company did not dispute that there was no arbitration agreement between it and Hejing Company. On the contrary, Miaofu Company had filed a counter-claim with the Arbitral Tribunal, in essence accepting the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction over the case. As Miaofu Company did not raise any objection to the validity of the arbitration agreement in the arbitration, the Court did not support Miaofu Company's request to set aside the Arbitral Award on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between Miaofu Company and Hejing Company.

In conclusion, in accordance with Article 58(1) and Article 60 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 17 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues relating to Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the Court ruled that the application of the Claimant Miaofu Ecological Construction Co., Ltd. is rejected.

案件简介：

新加坡亚化集团有限公司（以下简称“亚化集团”）的矿业位于四川省新建的大熊猫国家公园内。2017年6月，亚化集团收到四川省绵竹市环保部门通知，要求其终止两处磷矿的运营，并经过水土保持计划的审批。2017年11月，四川省绵竹市政府（以下简称“绵竹市政府”）向亚化集团发出通知，以矿场位于四川九顶山自然保护区为由，要求其撤离并修复矿场。2018年2月，亚化集团的采矿权期限届满，四川省政府拒绝了该集团的采矿权续期申请，并责令其停止两处磷酸盐矿的开采活动。四川省有关部门认定矿场坐落于大熊猫国家公园区域内，基于“公共利益考虑”拒绝了亚化集团的采矿权续期申请。

亚化集团认为绵竹市政府的行为构成了“非法征收”，且通过磋商后仍无法友好解决纠纷，因此，依据《中华人民共和国政府和新加坡共和国政府关于促进和保护投资的协定》（以下简称“中新BIT”）第十三条第三款的规定，即规定就“补偿价款的争端”与联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）仲裁规则，于2020年在国际投资争端解决中心（以下简称“仲裁庭”）向绵竹市政府提起国际投资仲裁。

被申请人绵竹市政府提出了管辖权异议，认为仲裁庭的管辖权仅限于与征收补偿款额有关的数量问题争议，对于申请人提起的关于征收的存在性及合法性问题，本案仲裁庭不具有管辖权。

法院观点：

仲裁庭依次处理了以下两个问题：第一，中新BIT第十三条第三款【1】所载被申请人的仲裁同意范围是否涵盖申请人提出的征收索赔；第二，中新BIT第四条【2】所载的最惠国条款是否可以用以扩大被申请人仲裁同意的范围。

一、被申请人的仲裁同意范围是否涵盖申请人提出的征收索赔？
本案管辖权裁决的关键是对中新BIT第十三条第三款的解释。仲裁庭依据《维也纳条约法公约》第三十一条与三十二条所载规则，综合考虑了中新BIT第十三条第三款文本的通常含义、上下文语境、缔约历史及有效性解释原则等方面，认为：“关于”一词具有中立性、非决定性；“补偿款额”一词更有利于确定仲裁条款的适用范围；缔约历史支持狭义解释。

对于该条款规定的可提交国际仲裁的争议范围，最终以多数意见采用狭义解释——该条仅允许与征收补偿款额有关的争议（数额问题）提交国际仲裁；对于征收是否存在及其合法性争议（权利问题），仲裁庭没有管辖权。

二、最惠国条款能否用以扩大仲裁同意的范围？

仲裁庭的多数意见进一步驳回了申请人关于最惠国条款可以扩大争端解决条款适用范围的主张。

仲裁庭重申，只有在双方清晰且明确同意的情况下仲裁庭才具有管辖权。在认定一方当事人的仲裁同意是否可以根据最惠国条款扩大时，也必须考虑这一基本方式。

本案中，仲裁庭认为中新BIT没有明确表示可依据最惠国条款扩大仲裁条款的适用范围。首先，依据通常含义解释，第四条的措辞不能被视为对仲裁条款的明确扩展。其次，结合上下文考虑，缔约方已就一项仲裁条款进行了谈判并达成了一致，该条款的适用范围经过了仔细谈判并受到严格限制，仅包括补偿数额方面的争议。因此，经过如此努力谈判而确定的仲裁条款的范围，在没有任何额外协议的情况下，仅基于后续不相关背景下生成的条款，不能推定缔约方同意将其扩大。仲裁庭援引了中国和新加坡的一份换文来加强上述结论，双方在换文中承诺通过谈判来扩大可以提交仲裁的争议领域。

因此，仲裁庭认定，第十三条第三款中的仲裁条款的范围不能因中新BIT第四条中的最惠国条款而扩大。

综上，国际投资争端解决中心驳回了申请人的所有主张。

【1】 中新BIT 第十三条 投资争议：

一、缔约一方的国民或公司与缔约另一方之间就在缔约另一方领土内的投资产生的争议应尽量由当事方友好协商解决。

二、如果争议在六个月内未能协商解决，当事任何一方有权将争议提交接受投资的缔约一方有管辖权的法院。

三、第六条关于征收、国有化或其效果相当于征收、国有化的其他措施发生的补偿款额的争议，有关的国民或公司在诉诸本条第一款的程序后六个月内仍未能解决，可将争议提交由双方组成的国际仲裁庭。

如果有关的国民或公司诉诸了本条第二款所规定的程序，本款规定不应适用。

【2】中新BIT 第四条 最惠国条款：

除第五、六和十一条外，缔约任何一方对缔约另一方根据第二条规定允许在其领土内的投资或收益所给予的待遇不应低于其给予第三国国民和公司的投资或收益的待遇。

International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes:

The Most Favoured Nation Clause Shall not Extend the Scope of Application of the Dispute Settlement Clause

Case Description：

The mines of the Singapore AsiaPhos Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "AsiaPhos Limited") are located in the newly constructed Giant Panda National Park (hereinafter referred to as the “Panda Park”) in Sichuan Province. In June 2017, the AsiaPhos Limited received a notice from the environmental protection department of Mianzhu , Sichuan Province, requiring it to terminate the operation of the two phosphate mines and to obtain approval for a soil and water conservation plan. In November 2017, the Mianzhu Municipal Government of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the "Mianzhu Municipal Government") issued a notice to the AsiaPhos Limited requiring it to vacate and restore the mines on the grounds that they were located in the Jiudingshan Nature Reserve in Sichuan Province. In February 2018, the Group's mining rights expired. The Sichuan provincial government rejected the group's application for renewal of its mining rights and ordered it to cease mining activities at the two phosphate mines. The Sichuan authorities rejected the AsiaPhos Limited's application for renewal of the mining rights based on "public interest considerations" as the mines are located within the Panda Park area.

AsiaPhos Limited considered that the actions of the Mianzhu Municipal Government constituted an " Unlawful Expropriation" and that the dispute could not be resolved amicably after negotiations, and therefore, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Singapore on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (hereinafter referred to as the "PRC-Singapore BIT") and the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), filed a lawsuit with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal") in 2020 to initiate international investment arbitration against Mianzhu Municipal Government.

The Respondent, Mianzhu Municipal Government, objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, arguing that the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal was limited to disputes over quantitative issues relating to the amount of compensation for expropriation and that the Arbitral Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the issue raised by the Claimant regarding the existence and legality of the expropriation.

Court’s View：

In this case, the main dispute centerd on the jurisdictional aspect. The Arbitral Tribunal dealt with the following two issues in turn: firstly, whether the scope of the respondent's consent to arbitration contained in Article 13(3) 【3】of the PRC-Singapore BIT covered the claimant's claim for expropriation; and secondly, whether the Most Favoured Nation Clause (hereinafter referred to as the "MFN Clause") contained in Article 4【4】 of the PRC-Singapore BIT could be used to extend the scope of the respondent's consent to arbitration.

1. Whether the scope of the Respondent's consent to arbitration covers the Claimant's claim for expropriation?

The key to the jurisdictional decision in this case is the interpretation of Article 13(3) of the PRC-Singapore BIT. The Arbitral Tribunal, in accordance with the rules contained in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, having considered the ordinary meaning, the context, the history of the contracting parties and the principles of interpretation of validity of the text of Article 13(3) of the PRC-Singapore BIT, finds that the term "involving" is neutral and non-conclusive; the expression “the amount of compensation” is more informative to determine the scope of the arbitration clause; the history of contracting supports a narrow interpretation.

The majority opinion ultimately adopts a narrow interpretation of the scope of disputes that may be submitted to international arbitration under the clause - the clause only allows disputes relating to the amount of compensation for expropriation (the amount issue) to be submitted to international arbitration; the tribunal has no jurisdiction over disputes as to the existence and legality of the expropriation (the right issue).

2. Whether the MFN Clause can be used to extend the scope of consent to arbitration?

The majority opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal further rejected the Claimant's argument that the MFN clause could be used to extend the scope of application of the dispute settlement clause.

As noted at the outset of the Arbitral Tribunal’s reasoning, an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction only if, and to the extent that, the Parties have consented thereto in a clear and unequivocal manner. This fundamental approach must also be considered when assessing whether the arbitral consent of one party can be expanded by virtue of an MFN clause.

In the case at hand, the Arbitral Tribunal found that the PRC-Singapore BIT does not provide for such expansion of the arbitration clause by virtue of the MFN clause. First, pursuant to its ordinary meaning, the wording of Article 4 cannot be considered an unambiguous expansion of the arbitration clause. Secondly, considered in context, the Contracting Parties to the Treaty have negotiated and agreed on an arbitration clause with a carefully negotiated and limited scope, encompassing only disputes over the amount of compensation. Therefore, they cannot be presumed to have agreed that the diligently negotiated scope of the arbitration clause could be enlarged without any additional agreement but rather based on subsequently negotiated arbitration clauses from unrelated treaties negotiated in an unrelated context. The tribunal reinforced these conclusions by citing an exchange of letters between China and Singapore in which the parties undertook to negotiate to expand the areas of dispute that could be submitted to arbitration.

Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal concludes that the scope of the arbitration clause in Article 13(3) cannot be expanded by virtue of the MFN clause in Article 4 of the PRC--Singapore BIT.

In summary, the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes rejects all claims made by the Claimant. 

【3】Article 13 of the PRC-Singapore BIT Investment Disputes:

1. Any dispute between a national or company of one Contracting Party and the other Contracting Party in connection with an

investment in the territory of the other Contracting Party shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably through negotiations between

the parties to the dispute.

2. If the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations within six months, either party to the dispute shall be entitled to submit the

dispute to the competent court of the Contracting Party accepting the investment.

3. If a dispute involving the amount of compensation resulting from expropriation, nationalization, or other measures having effect equivalent to nationalization or expropriation mentioned in Article 6 cannot be settled within six months after resort to negotiation as specified in paragraph (1) of this Article by the national or company concerned, it may be submitted to an international arbitral tribunal established by both parties.

The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if the national or company concerned has resorted to the procedure specified in the

paragraph (2) of this Article.

【4】 Article 4 of the PRC-Singapore BIT Most Favoured Nation Clause:

Subject to Articles 5, 6 and 11, neither Contracting Party shall in its territory subject investments admitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 or returns of nationals and companies of the other Contracting Party to treatment less favourable than that which it accords to investments or returns of nationals and companies of any third State.