
Advertisement
Michael Feller, co-founder and chief strategist at consulting firm Geopolitical Strategy in Melbourne, said the case was likely to stall the ultimate outcomes for several years, which may suit Canberra if it meant a decision on a forced sale did not need to be made for a very long time.
Landbridge Group said in a statement on May 1 that it “has regrettably been unable to achieve a satisfactory outcome through dialogue alone” after efforts to reach a constructive resolution with the Australian government and was now taking “necessary steps” to protect its legal rights.
The first-ever ICSID claim against Australia is the latest development in a diplomatic row over the port, located in the country’s north where both the US and Australia are expanding air bases to host US bombers.
Advertisement
James Laurenceson, director and professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute with the University of Technology in Sydney, said that Landbridge’s request for arbitration itself “is not a bad one” for the Australia-China relationship.

Don't Miss:
-
Will Philippines’ new bill entrench the political dynasties it aims to curb?
-
Japan’s latest live-fire drill is about offence, not defence: PLA Daily
-
4 more suspects arrested over HK$7 million gold bar robbery at Hong Kong airport
-
China rejects trade criticism after Merz backs global yuan action
-
Mainland ride-hailing giants back Hong Kong plan to cap permits at 10,000

Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet’s Future
BOOK REVIEW: China’s Colonial Games in Tibet
India’s Zojila Tunnel Shores up Defense Posture in Himalayas