About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Berkeley Bus. L.J. 255 (2016)
National Security Review in Foreign Investments: A Comparative and Critical Assessment on China and U.S. Laws and Practices

handle is hein.journals/berkbusj13 and id is 156 raw text is: Article National Security Review in Foreign Investments: A Comparative and Critical Assessment on China and U.S. Laws and Practices Xingxing Li* This Article takes a comparative approach to critically assess the laws and practices of national security review in connection with inbound foreign investment in China and the United States-the two biggest host countries for foreign direct investments. While the two regulatory apparatuses bear a degree of formalistic resemblance as China transplanted some of the mechanisms from the United States, they have contrasting effects in implementation. It explains certain nuanced differences in the two regulatory frameworks as well as the distinctive political economies behind institutional designs that contribute to the deviations observed in the two apparatuses. The assessment focuses on three vital aspects: (i) the criticism on the secrecy, unpredictability and politicization in the decision-making process in national security review, (ii) relatedly, the scope and the standards of review that lead to under- inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness in enforcement, which add to the uncertainty and blur the line between national security and economic interests, and (iii) a few structural layouts that cause unreasonable delay, present undesirable deterrence effects, dampen efficiency, undermine comparative expertise of regulators, and create misplaced incentives for foreign investors. Regarding the United States, the blurred contour of national security review calls into question whether the review is solely about national security, or if it also concerns economic interests. Against the backdrops of (a) no definition of national security being available, (b) no monetary threshold of reviewable transactions being available, (c) a broad definition of control, and (d) the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) process being immune from judicial review, the case-by-case adjudication approach currently taken by CFIUS is particularly inapt to shed light on a highly secretive CFIUS . Associate Professor, Jinan University Law School. J.S.D. & LL.M., The University of Chicago Law School; LL.M. & LL.B., Tsinghua University Law School. Former senior associate at Clifford Chance LLP. I would like to thank The Hon. Richard A. Posner, Kenneth Dam and Adam Chilton for reviewing an earlier draft of this Article. I also thank William Hubbard, Michael Han, Yan Wang, and two anonymous interviewees from MOFCOM for very helpful discussions, and the attendants at the Research Colloquium of The University of Chicago Law School for their feedback and suggestions. I thank the editors of The Berkeley Business Law Journal for their editing and suggestions in the publication process, and Marjorie Holmes and Snigdha Sah for their proofreading an earlier version of this Article. The mentioning of scholars does not intend to claim endorsements, and all errors are mine. 255

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most