条约外交的局限性:中国双边投资协定项目的证据

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Adam Chilton, Weijia Rao
{"title":"条约外交的局限性:中国双边投资协定项目的证据","authors":"Adam Chilton,&nbsp;Weijia Rao","doi":"10.1111/jels.12399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The web of over 3000 Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) is the primary body of international law regulating cross-border investments. Research suggests that these treaties may have had a limited impact on promoting new investments, but that they still may have helped to improve countries' political relationships. In this paper, we document that this pattern was reversed for one of the most prolific signers of BITs: China. Using a stacked-event research design, we find that Chinese BITs are associated with an increase in Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment Flows but a divergence in voting patterns at the United Nations. We then explore two explanations for why the Chinese BIT program led to increased investment while also producing foreign policy divergence: that the domestic political costs of economic engagement with China push countries away, and that there are offsetting international pressures that have stronger pulls than China's efforts. We find no support for the domestic political costs explanation, but we do find evidence that the countries that received increased aid from the United States after signing a Chinese BIT had greater foreign policy divergence with China.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"21 4","pages":"1023-1101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The limits of diplomacy by treaty: Evidence from China's bilateral investment treaty program\",\"authors\":\"Adam Chilton,&nbsp;Weijia Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The web of over 3000 Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) is the primary body of international law regulating cross-border investments. Research suggests that these treaties may have had a limited impact on promoting new investments, but that they still may have helped to improve countries' political relationships. In this paper, we document that this pattern was reversed for one of the most prolific signers of BITs: China. Using a stacked-event research design, we find that Chinese BITs are associated with an increase in Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment Flows but a divergence in voting patterns at the United Nations. We then explore two explanations for why the Chinese BIT program led to increased investment while also producing foreign policy divergence: that the domestic political costs of economic engagement with China push countries away, and that there are offsetting international pressures that have stronger pulls than China's efforts. We find no support for the domestic political costs explanation, but we do find evidence that the countries that received increased aid from the United States after signing a Chinese BIT had greater foreign policy divergence with China.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"21 4\",\"pages\":\"1023-1101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12399\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由 3000 多份双边投资条约("BIT")组成的网络是规范跨境投资的主要国际法体系。研究表明,这些条约对促进新投资的影响可能有限,但仍可能有助于改善各国的政治关系。在本文中,我们记录了这一模式在最多签署双边投资协定的国家中的逆转:中国。利用叠加事件研究设计,我们发现中国的双边投资条约与双边外国直接投资流量的增加相关,但在联合国的投票模式却出现了分化。然后,我们探讨了中国双边投资协定项目在增加投资的同时也产生外交政策分歧的两种解释:一是与中国进行经济交往的国内政治成本迫使各国放弃;二是存在比中国的努力更强大的国际压力。我们没有发现支持国内政治成本解释的证据,但我们确实发现有证据表明,在签署中国双边投资协定后从美国获得更多援助的国家与中国的外交政策分歧更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The limits of diplomacy by treaty: Evidence from China's bilateral investment treaty program

The web of over 3000 Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) is the primary body of international law regulating cross-border investments. Research suggests that these treaties may have had a limited impact on promoting new investments, but that they still may have helped to improve countries' political relationships. In this paper, we document that this pattern was reversed for one of the most prolific signers of BITs: China. Using a stacked-event research design, we find that Chinese BITs are associated with an increase in Bilateral Foreign Direct Investment Flows but a divergence in voting patterns at the United Nations. We then explore two explanations for why the Chinese BIT program led to increased investment while also producing foreign policy divergence: that the domestic political costs of economic engagement with China push countries away, and that there are offsetting international pressures that have stronger pulls than China's efforts. We find no support for the domestic political costs explanation, but we do find evidence that the countries that received increased aid from the United States after signing a Chinese BIT had greater foreign policy divergence with China.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信