New Model for Chinese Companies' Lawsuits: Scholars Say Using World Bank Arbitration to Counter Foreign National Security Measures
Chinese companies are adopting a new model of resistance by using World Bank arbitration mechanisms to challenge foreign governments' national security measures against Chinese investment, as seen in cases like Australia's Darwin Port and Sweden's 5G business.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 7, 2026 at 10:54
- 🔍 Collected: May 7, 2026 at 11:01 (7 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 7, 2026 at 11:39 (37 min after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Chiu Te-chen, Sydney, 7th) Associate Professor Colin Hawes of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Law School told the Central News Agency that in response to the international community's increasing vigilance against potential national security risks posed by Chinese companies, Chinese companies have begun to adopt a new model of resistance: using arbitration mechanisms such as the World Bank to challenge foreign governments that block Chinese investment for national security reasons.
Ye Cheng, chairman of Chinese company Landbridge Group, filed an arbitration request with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of the World Bank Group at the end of April, attempting to prevent the Australian government from reclaiming the company's operating rights for Darwin Port. After the news broke, the dispute over Darwin Port's operating rights once again attracted international attention.
The Northern Territory government of Australia signed an agreement with Landbridge Group in October 2015, leasing the Darwin Port terminal and surrounding facilities to Landbridge Group for 99 years. As the port's operating rights fell into the hands of a Chinese company, public opinion was concerned whether Australia was effectively opening its doors. At the same time, Darwin Port is precisely where the US rotational forces are stationed in Australia. In addition, the Chinese government once intervened in the relevant dispute, for example, in May 2025, Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian publicly criticized Australia's plan to reclaim Darwin Port. Therefore, the issue of Chinese companies operating Darwin Port has continued to be a focus of controversy.
Hawes responded to the Central News Agency's questions via email today, pointing out that Landbridge Group's challenge to the Australian government's move to reclaim Darwin Port reflects a new model of resistance adopted by Chinese companies to counter foreign national security measures.
Hawes explained that currently, there are only a few international arbitration mechanisms available for companies to directly challenge foreign government decisions, and the World Bank's ICSID is one of them.
In addition to Landbridge Group's case against the Australian government, he believes it is also noteworthy that the Swedish government, in 2020, prohibited Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from participating in the country's 5G business for national security reasons. In response, Huawei filed an arbitration request with ICSID in 2022, demanding 569 million US dollars (approximately 17.9 billion New Taiwan dollars) in compensation from the Swedish government.
Hawes reminded that Huawei's lawsuit against Sweden is still ongoing; if Huawei wins, it will set a precedent, and more Chinese companies may file similar lawsuits in the future.
Australian non-profit media The Conversation published Hawes's op-ed yesterday (5th), titled "Chinese companies are increasingly taking on foreign governments. It’s not just the Port of Darwin." The article mentioned that as more than one Chinese company files arbitration requests with ICSID, it reflects that Chinese companies have adopted a new counter-model to respond to foreign governments' national security measures; foreign governments may also be concerned about the financial burden involved in blocking Chinese investment for national security reasons.
Victor Abramowicz, former intelligence analyst for the Australian Department of Defence and currently General Manager of Ostoya Consulting, responded to the Central News Agency's questions via email yesterday (6th), stating that from a commercial perspective, Darwin Port brings very little profit to Landbridge Group. Therefore, Abramowicz believes: "Beyond commercial motives, Ye Cheng's lawsuit may involve political factors."
Abramowicz believes that to resolve the Darwin Port operating rights dispute, Australia will inevitably have to pay compensation to Landbridge Group. He believes that Australia may propose a mutually beneficial termination agreement amount to allow China to save face; or, even if the port is directly compulsorily acquired, the Australian government will still need to pay compensation according to law. He worries that Australian taxpayers "will be the only losers."
Australian public broadcaster ABC reported on the 1st that reclaiming Darwin Port's operating rights is already a bipartisan consensus in Australia. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised during the 2025 general election that he would force the Chinese operator to sell the Darwin Port operating rights, stating that this is a necessary measure to maintain national security. Opposition Liberal Party Defence Spokesperson James Paterson pointed out that Albanese must fulfill his promise to restore Darwin Port to Australian national sovereign control. (Editor: Chen Cheng-kung) 1150507
Choose to stand with the facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and audio-visual content on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.
(Central News Agency reporter Chiu Te-chen, Sydney, 7th) Associate Professor Colin Hawes of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Law School told the Central News Agency that in response to the international community's increasing vigilance against potential national security risks posed by Chinese companies, Chinese companies have begun to adopt a new model of resistance: using arbitration mechanisms such as the World Bank to challenge foreign governments that block Chinese investment for national security reasons.
Ye Cheng, chairman of Chinese company Landbridge Group, filed an arbitration request with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of the World Bank Group at the end of April, attempting to prevent the Australian government from reclaiming the company's operating rights for Darwin Port. After the news broke, the dispute over Darwin Port's operating rights once again attracted international attention.
The Northern Territory government of Australia signed an agreement with Landbridge Group in October 2015, leasing the Darwin Port terminal and surrounding facilities to Landbridge Group for 99 years. As the port's operating rights fell into the hands of a Chinese company, public opinion was concerned whether Australia was effectively opening its doors. At the same time, Darwin Port is precisely where the US rotational forces are stationed in Australia. In addition, the Chinese government once intervened in the relevant dispute, for example, in May 2025, Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian publicly criticized Australia's plan to reclaim Darwin Port. Therefore, the issue of Chinese companies operating Darwin Port has continued to be a focus of controversy.
Hawes responded to the Central News Agency's questions via email today, pointing out that Landbridge Group's challenge to the Australian government's move to reclaim Darwin Port reflects a new model of resistance adopted by Chinese companies to counter foreign national security measures.
Hawes explained that currently, there are only a few international arbitration mechanisms available for companies to directly challenge foreign government decisions, and the World Bank's ICSID is one of them.
In addition to Landbridge Group's case against the Australian government, he believes it is also noteworthy that the Swedish government, in 2020, prohibited Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from participating in the country's 5G business for national security reasons. In response, Huawei filed an arbitration request with ICSID in 2022, demanding 569 million US dollars (approximately 17.9 billion New Taiwan dollars) in compensation from the Swedish government.
Hawes reminded that Huawei's lawsuit against Sweden is still ongoing; if Huawei wins, it will set a precedent, and more Chinese companies may file similar lawsuits in the future.
Australian non-profit media The Conversation published Hawes's op-ed yesterday (5th), titled "Chinese companies are increasingly taking on foreign governments. It’s not just the Port of Darwin." The article mentioned that as more than one Chinese company files arbitration requests with ICSID, it reflects that Chinese companies have adopted a new counter-model to respond to foreign governments' national security measures; foreign governments may also be concerned about the financial burden involved in blocking Chinese investment for national security reasons.
Victor Abramowicz, former intelligence analyst for the Australian Department of Defence and currently General Manager of Ostoya Consulting, responded to the Central News Agency's questions via email yesterday (6th), stating that from a commercial perspective, Darwin Port brings very little profit to Landbridge Group. Therefore, Abramowicz believes: "Beyond commercial motives, Ye Cheng's lawsuit may involve political factors."
Abramowicz believes that to resolve the Darwin Port operating rights dispute, Australia will inevitably have to pay compensation to Landbridge Group. He believes that Australia may propose a mutually beneficial termination agreement amount to allow China to save face; or, even if the port is directly compulsorily acquired, the Australian government will still need to pay compensation according to law. He worries that Australian taxpayers "will be the only losers."
Australian public broadcaster ABC reported on the 1st that reclaiming Darwin Port's operating rights is already a bipartisan consensus in Australia. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised during the 2025 general election that he would force the Chinese operator to sell the Darwin Port operating rights, stating that this is a necessary measure to maintain national security. Opposition Liberal Party Defence Spokesperson James Paterson pointed out that Albanese must fulfill his promise to restore Darwin Port to Australian national sovereign control. (Editor: Chen Cheng-kung) 1150507
Choose to stand with the facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and audio-visual content on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.