Semenya v. Switzerland. Application No. 10934/21

pending before ICSID and the PCA, 27 all involving attempts to establish jurisdiction based on restrictive ISDS clauses, and more are likely to follow.China's position remains difficult: it advocates for narrower interpretations to safeguard its government, yet broader ones to benefit its investors.Nonetheless, arbitral decisions are not always predictable or favorable.The Junefield award, however, offers a positive signal for both Chinese and foreign investors, as it provides future tribunals a reference point for adopting a broader reading of restrictive clauses.Notably, PowerChina and others v. Viet Nam (II)-one of the four pending Chinarelated cases referenced earlier-is based on the 1992 China-Vietnam BIT, whose restrictive ISDS clause and the contextual structure are nearly identical to those of the 1994 China-Ecuador BIT in Junefield.Whether the PowerChina tribunal will follow Junefield's broad interpretation is thus a matter of significant interest.More broadly, cases like Junefield highlight the pressing need for China and other treaty parties to revise and refine their treaty drafting practice.They provide a compelling justification for adopting more precise, coherent language in the next generation of BIT negotiations.