This article addresses the need for clarity as regards the sources of public international law, or at least as much clarity as possible. Questions relating to sources lie at the heart of international law. Of particular concern is the lack of rigour shown by some domestic judges when it comes to determining the rules of customary international law.

From a conceptual viewpoint, the legal universe has found its almost perfect configuration in our time. Almost all of the peoples of the world are members of the United Nations and as such are entitled to co-operate in shaping the direction and content of policies at the global level. Before World War II, and even a considerable time after the horrendous events unleashed by that war, many nations had no say in international matters. They were placed under colonial rule, which meant that their voices were not heard—or heard only through the mediation of the powers that acted as their wards and guardians. That situation of structural discrimination has changed dramatically. All the peoples of the world have reached sovereign statehood and have been admitted to the world forum.

As a growing power, China is confronted with many challenges that include the revision of its erstwhile philosophies so as to better adapt itself to globalization and the contemporary international legal order. This article analyzes the close relationship between China’s attitude to international law and Chinese philosophy. It aims to help people to understand China’s behaviour on the global plane and the steps China is taking to integrate more seamlessly into the international legal order.

International policy-makers so far have successfully pre-empted any new major national legislation in the G7 countries aimed specifically at sovereign wealth funds by getting the International Monetary Fund to work with them on formulating a set of best practices commonly known as the Santiago Principles. However, some observers stress that this is just the beginning. How does one measure and evaluate compliance with these principles? Is voluntary self-regulation really sufficient? Or is there a need for new rules and regulations? As the discussion shifts from policy and economics to governance and regulation, we move firmly into the realm of law—legal norms, rules, and statutes. However, the required clarity and commonality of definitions and terms have been elusive. There does not seem to be universal agreement about the precise meanings of even the most fundamental terms in the SWF debate. This article hence focuses on the definitional challenges inherent in this debate.

The strategic investments made by SWFs in vital economic sectors of the developed states have caused national security concerns. The existing law on foreign investment, which was designed by the developed states to permit liberal flows of foreign investment and emphasize protection against government interference, sits uneasily with recent moves to control SWF investments. The developed states may have to dismantle to a significant extent the international law they had created to protect foreign investment and retreat into principles of sovereignty earlier advocated by the developing states. This will result in dramatic changes to customary law as well as treaty norms and significantly undermine the present structure of investment protection: a complete reversal of the neoliberal vision may occur. This phenomenon provides an opportunity for the examination of how events that lead to the quick making of legal rules in line with a legal theory favoured in a particular political context are, equally quickly, replaced by another set of rules to suit rapid changes in the power balances.

Sovereign wealth funds—state-controlled transnational portfolio investment vehicles—began as an externally imposed category in search of a definition. SWFs from different countries had little in common and no desire to collaborate. This article elaborates the implications of diverse public, private, domestic, and external demands on SWFs, and describes how their apparently artificial grouping became a site for innovation in international law-making.

In this article we look at the governance of SWFs from the perspective of the competing political interests embedded in the sponsor—the domestic political claims on funds and the principles and practice of governance used to discipline those interests in favour of a long-term perspective that emphasizes the conservation of wealth and the intergenerational transfer of benefits. Using the case-study of the Australian SWF known as the Future Fund, we argue that SWFs can be used as legal instruments to promote the interests of future generations. In this way, it puts into action the principle of intergenerational equity which has been hereto notoriously difficult to substantively apply in international law. By invoking the intergenerational principle, we argue that the Australian government not only responded to the legal challenges of implementing intergenerational equity but also contributed to its currency as a customary norm.

Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are currently under increased scrutiny. This article aims at identifying the features and likely impact of the Generally Accepted Principles and Practices (GAPP), using two lenses, both well known to legal scholars, especially within global administrative law (GAL) studies: global standards and transparency. On the one hand, contrasting the GAPP with other types of global financial standards can help identify the most powerful incentives to foster compliance. On the other hand, even though the transparency provisions requesting SWFs to provide public information concerning their legal basis, structure, and financing decisions appear to be a step in the right direction, they need further clarification so that a proper balance between disclosure and the need to avoid unnecessary costs can be struck. Moreover, this article claims that the effectiveness of disclosure provisions in fostering the accountability of the funds depends also on the existence of structural elements.

Concerns in host countries about the investment activities of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) arise from their non-commercial motives and lack of transparency. In response to such concerns, investor countries have begun to work together to set up the norms and laws which will define the governance and regulation of SWFs. In particular, the Santiago Principles have given birth to a set of voluntary principles and guidelines designed to guide their investment behaviour. In this article, we point out that the Santiago Principles are fundamentally consistent with the commercial self-interest of SWFs, which bodes well for the prospects of their voluntary adoption. The Santiago Principles serve a highly valuable role as a mechanism which signals and crystallizes the commitment of SWFs to comply with the basic rules and regulations of the countries in which they invest.

The China Investment Corporation (CIC) has often been perceived as a threat by Western economies. Such fears, however, are unfounded as the severe losses incurred by CIC during the recent economic crisis reveals that the fund, just like other investment entities, is vulnerable to market conditions. Moreover, given their relative lack of expertise in international investment, the regulation and development of “young and inexperienced” sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) within their home state is more pertinent than the defensive regulation structured by the host states in which SWFs invest. Positive financial returns should always be the fundamental goal of SWFs, rather than non-commercial considerations. This article proposes a three-step approach to regulating SWFs from a Chinese perspective: (1) home states should distinguish between their roles as shareholders and managers of state-owned capital-exporting institutions, and can use the Santiago Principles for that purpose; (2) host countries should not discriminate against SWFs but treat them as private institutional investors; and (3) there should be a clarification of the international investment regime regarding state investment. If these three steps are taken, SWFs would be depoliticized, and biased regulatory agencies and regulations would be a thing of the past. Under a broad regime, concerns between home and host states could then be addressed at bilateral or multilateral forums.