Despite the dominance of arbitration in the realm of investor-state disputes, the variety of proposals for reform suggest considerable stakeholder discontent with the current framework. One suggested reform is the introduction of investor–state mediation, which has been supported by the conclusion of the Singapore Convention on Mediation and the proposal by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of a set of mediation rules. This article examines the respective merits of arbitration and mediation to settle investment disputes related to the Belt and Road Initiative. Many of the principles underpinning the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative sit uncomfortably alongside an adversarial adjudicative mechanism, and access to arbitration is limited in some investment treaties. It is argued that, in some instances, mediation may be more attuned to the unique conditions of the Belt and Road Initiative. Stakeholders have done considerable work to enhance the legitimacy of mediation within the field of investor–state dispute settlement, but it remains dormant in practice and comparatively rare within investment treaties. While a mediated settlement will remain elusive in many instances, it can be encouraged by a series of reforms to treaty drafting, the internal organization of government departments, and the actions of foreign investors.

中文翻译：

---

投资者-国家调解与“一带一路”倡议：审查和解条件

尽管仲裁在投资者与国家争端领域占据主导地位，但改革提案的多样性表明利益相关者对当前框架存在相当大的不满。一项建议的改革是引入投资者-国家调解，这得到了《新加坡调解公约》的缔结和国际投资争端解决中心 (ICSID) 提出的一套调解规则的建议的支持。本文探讨了仲裁和调解在解决与“一带一路”倡议相关的投资争议方面各自的优点。支持“一带一路”倡议实施的许多原则令人不安地与对抗性裁决机制并驾齐驱，在某些投资条约中，仲裁机会受到限制。有人认为，在某些情况下，调解可能更适合“一带一路”倡议的独特条件。利益相关者为提高投资者与国家争端解决领域调解的合法性做了大量工作，但在实践中仍处于休眠状态，在投资条约中相对较少。尽管在许多情况下调解解决仍然难以实现，但可以通过对条约起草、政府部门内部组织和外国投资者行为的一系列改革来鼓励它。