{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022629310344827586, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.984962406015038, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judicial Cooperation as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Transnational Dispute Settlement Order


 Traditional socio-legal works showed that authoritarian regimes benefit from embracing international arbitration, obviating any foreign investor’s distrust of non-independent and non-democratic courts. This article explores judicial cooperation by analysing the methods of dispute settlement adopted between China and the Arab Middle Eastern States involved in the BRI. After reviewing the background of China’s legal involvement in the Middle East, China’s involvement with various transnational dispute resolution institutions in the Middle East is discussed, and special consideration is given to legal disputes in Kuwait, UAE, and Egypt. Finally, this article argues that rule of law legitimacy, social and cultural inertia, and governance cost-effectiveness all influence the resulting transnational dispute settlement scheme.