Current U.S. foreign direct investment concern national security review system hot

First, the United States, the national security of foreign capital inflow for the protection of historical development: the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS

U.S. censorship on foreign access to long-standing concern in the modern progressive national security review of foreign access to the system, too, has been at the forefront of .1975 in the world established by President Ford, "Foreign Investment Committee" (hereinafter referred to as CFIUS, is responsible for reviewing foreign Investment institutions to U.S. influence, the status of their development to such an historical process, a lively overview of the Investment on national security issues involved in how the United States and the concern to protect national security interests and maintain an open Investment policy to seek balanced development.


Although the U.S. economy has benefited from foreign Investment, but how to balance the needs to attract foreign Investment and protect the interests of national security has been a headache for the U.S. Lawmakers. As early as during World War I, Congress attempted to regulate foreign country assets. that period, the fear of German dominance of the national chemical industry, prompted Congress to pass the <<1917 Trading with the Enemy Act>> (the Trading with the Enermy Act, (TWEA, targeted in the U.S. German companies and assets. The bill grants the president control of the interests involved in the transactions of foreign countries and the power. to the 20th century, 70 years, mainly due to foreign currency related to the depreciation of the dollar, foreign Investment in the United States is increasing rapidly. result, Congress passed the < <1974 Foreign Investment Law ">," the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Commerce, foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a comprehensive review. "[2] The U.S. policy review foreign investment, the Government concluded that" the United States do not have enough monitoring mechanism to monitor foreign investment. "After the U.S. Congress passed legislation to strengthen the protection of foreign investment, especially for some special areas such as aviation, real estate, telecommunications management. It is worth mentioning that the <<1977 International Emergency Economic Rights Act>> (International Emergency Economic Powers Act, (IEEPA) to strengthen the foreign investment review was an exception to the trend, because it gives the president the power of foreign assets tied up in, must be formally declared a state of emergency.

In 1975, the expansion of Research methods as well as the U.S. Congress in response to the lack of effective mechanisms to conduct a comprehensive review of foreign concerns, President Ford established the Foreign Investment Committee (referred to as CFIUS.CFIUS was then established that the main purpose of "monitoring the impact of foreign investment on the United States ", and can assist in the implementation of U.S. policies for foreign investment. CFIUS first contains only six departments, including State, Commerce, Defense and the Ministry of Finance. its inception, CFIUS has not been given substantive right to regulate or prevent the problem of national security could lead to foreign investment. CFIUS only power is to oversee the investment and the requirements of foreign governments on their foreign investment activities to submit a preliminary report. While the heads of these institutions have no right to stop the proposed foreign investment transactions, but they can refer the agency's attention to the transactions, and by promoting authority to prevent such deals or prompted Congress to take action to prevent the negative effects of such transactions.

With the foreign investment situation becomes more complex, increase the CFIUS review of the duties and improve their standard of .20 growing calls in Japan occurred in the 80's Fujitsu tried to buy California, Fairchild Semiconductor cases triggered a nationwide uproar. The acquisition by the U.S. government as Japanese companies try to "rule the world semiconductor market," and the U.S. semiconductor industry and national security threats. through the acquisition of Fujitsu companies, Congress recognized that the lack of relevant domestic This Law authorizes the president to block the transaction. congressional representatives want to seek to "encourage the Government to protect the national interest" to review the Law and impede the transaction in question without having to start the International Emergency Economic Rights of extreme measures. So in 1988 Congress passed the Defense Production Act of 1950, Section 721's amendment, that Exxon - Feiluoliao the amendment came into being. By this amendment, CFIUS has been more authority In 1988 the president can authorize the amendment "suspend or prohibit any United States deemed a threat to U.S. national security (including the national economy of foreign mergers and acquisitions, acquisition or take over the business," but there should be credible evidence that foreign entities to take control may lead to threat to U.S. national security, and except <"State Emergency Economic Rights Law"> outside the law for the protection of national security can not provide adequate and appropriate authority. After President Reagan quickly through the <<amendment>> to the power vested in him and responsibilities delegated to CFIUS. result, CFIUS and its role as monitor the changes in place a new and enhanced functions of its investigation, so that it can be recommended to prevent threats to national security, foreign investment transactions. Since then, CFIUS began its review of national security threat of proposed and completed mergers and acquisitions, and in which cases the right to propose to the president comply with the conditions to be prevented.

All the companies for foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies to bring the issue of national security concerns, is the implementation of the Byrd Amendment in 1993, the motivation. At that time the French state company Thomson-CSF trying to buy the major U.S. defense contractors - LTV's aerospace and missile sectors. Later, Thomson-CSF companies to make recommendations in the CFIUS withdrawn prior to the bid, for fear of Political influence and failure. The events of the Congress in 1992, 1988 <<amendment>> about Terms were revised after referred to as the Byrd Amendment (Byrd Amendment. the most important provisions is the "control of any foreign government or entity on behalf of the interests of foreign governments, and its attempt to conduct mergers and acquisitions can affect the U.S. national security , then the President must be Specified by the President or the mandatory review. "
CFIUS since its inception in 1975, to 1988 <<amendment>> to its functional role in the strengthening of foreign investment in defense impact on national security had a positive effect. But the criticism of the CFIUS has been prevalent. Data show that from 1988 to 1999 since the implementation of the amendment, CFIUS reviewed only about 1,300 cases of voluntary notification of 17 cases, of which seven to voluntarily withdraw. In fact, only one case of foreign investment during the amendment blocked , that is, 1990, China Aviation Technology Import and Export Corporation's acquisition of U.S. Mamu Ke project. Critics argue that CFIUS has always taken its responsibilities of an "indifferent" "casual" attitude, they just focus on a particular transaction, for more , and on the basis of the national defense industry had a cumulative effect of the transaction is indifferent to [3]. there are still some who question the CFIUS review process, that its lack of transparency, there is its effective supervision. In short, CFIUS's effectiveness has not been solved, CFIUS review process and the reorganization and change of power has been the focus of debate.

911 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. standard of review for the enhancement of national security and foreign trade since then has been scrutiny. The U.S. government after the first 911 issues in the United States take a strong defense system and the necessary emergency of, a wide range of security has become a "top issue". CFIUS response to terrorist attacks intensified the access requirements of foreign mergers and acquisitions and in 2003 joined the Department of Defense to its members. Although more rigorous implementation of these access system for foreign investment, but one of the first obstacle is to find a balance, strengthen homeland security and continue to maintain the freedom of foreign investment and trade balance, which is the State's continued Economic success of the primary requirements of the balance.

Between 1992 and 2007, even if Congress tried to relevant groups to reform CFIUS, but CFIUS the authority and the law has not changed its rules. Until late 2005 early 2006, on the Dubai ports deal with the dissatisfaction of cases a sufficient action for Congress support. Republicans and Democrats have urged the U.S. Congress to amend the <<amendment>> to improve the status of CFIUS, expanding government for foreign companies to invest in infrastructure related to the core and key technologies such as economic and technical areas of national security review authority. [4 ] February 2007, House of Representatives passed the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and strengthen the transparency of the bill, this legislation is the content of the primary concern of the CFIUS review process. The bill of CFIUS's review process has made seven changes .2007 July 26, President Bush signed the 2007 Foreign Investment and National Security Act (FINSA). FINSA to legalize the status of CFIUS and its positioning in order to achieve the objectives of the 1988 amendments to the department appointed by the president. through fixed the CFIUS members, the role of implementation of the 1988 amendments, and legislative aspects of its mandate in the regulatory regime, the statutory basis for its stability makes the CFIUS review process. CFIUS review by emphasizing the need for transactions and increase congressional oversight, FINSA increased responsibilities for the CFIUS and strengthen the oversight of national security issues.

January 2008 an executive order President Bush to expand the membership of CFIUS, CFIUS from the current twelve divisions, added the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor. The executive order also review the appropriate orientation of the president in case position. President only (1 Committee recommends that the termination or prohibited transaction, (2 Committee can not decide whether to recommend the President to terminate or prohibit the transaction, (3, requested the President to make decisions for the transaction, these three cases, it involved them. The executive order specifically authorizing the Board use the same buffer protocol [5] to lower the risk of related transactions .2008 March 21, MOF issued the executive order and supporting the implementation of the Ordinance. These changes expand CFIUS's the scope of supervision, with different concerns and interests of organizations may become more parties to the review process.


Second, the existing system of U.S. national security review of hot topics

After the implementation of FINSA, although foreign investment flows into the U.S. CFIUS for national security review system showed some bright spots, but of course any kind of system itself there are some defective, coupled with the changing forms of international investment brought about by new issues, even in the world is called the most advanced countries in the security review system, in fact, its effectiveness is still debated in the United States.


One focus: to seek balance - protecting national security interests and open foreign investment policy
Question:
Countries in the world, the balance between open investment policy and national security relations between the two are headaches. If the review of foreign investment is too strict, it will affect the investment enthusiasm of foreign investors in the country, if foreign investors review is too relaxed, it will adversely affect the national interest. Therefore, countries in the world are looking for a balance of national security review for foreign investment and seek a less "strict" standards. The United States also faces the same problem. Although Congress has continued to reform the national security review of the legislative system, and the surface is to strengthen the review of foreign investment, but in fact the U.S. government has been seeking a balance, that the protection of national security and foreign policy to maintain open balance and the balance of the voice of a great many people are still at the implementation of FINSA investor will transfer the relevant investment. Therefore the United States in the design of the system are also special attention to this.

FINSA implementation, CFIUS purpose of the work is approved to protect national security while maintaining an open investment policy, to maintain the confidence of foreign investors and domestic investors in the United States overseas will not be retaliatory discrimination. [6] from the CFIUS purpose of the work, the United States to foreign investors the information provided is, FINSA implementation of the CFIUS review did not affect the foreign policy of the U.S. Open, but in order to better safeguard the open investment policy. But the good will not achieve the desired results, the U.S. scholars question the CFIUS to foreign investment after the reform had a negative impact.

Christopher M Weimer in his paper on the proposed 2007 Act increased the critical infrastructure and key Technology of a CFIUS review process considerations. Now CFIUS review of foreign investment compared with the past, involving a wide range of , more foreign direct investment is subject to CFIUS review. results, FINSA may convey such a message, the U.S. FDI is gradually taking the attitude of protection. This concept will affect foreign investors continue to invest in the confidence of the United States, so The United States should clarify to the outside world, the United States is only concerned with protecting the most important threat to investment in most sectors of the economy, or no limit.

Joanna Rubin Travalini in the paper that after the reform of the CFIUS either for companies or foreign capital for its own economy, will have a negative impact. In terms of M & implications of the company are: First, investors need to consider security review the additional time and risk. These factors proved to be the factors that hinder the potential investors, they do not like scrutiny and lengthy procedures necessary to complete their transactions. Second, foreign investors will consider the CFIUS review the cost and burden of the process. submit the necessary information file would have a necessary expenditure and burden, but also increased the number of submissions can not be predicted at risk. In addition, foreign investors also need to consider the compromise proposed by CFIUS, the purpose of the audit. Third, the domestic acquisition of competitive bids are likely to use CFIUS review process, by manipulating the system and the use of the current bid or a hostile bid to take the initiative to benefit. who understand the CFIUS review process of the investors may will propose a lower takeover offer, so they may be potential competitors by reviewing the transaction will not be approved. In a hostile takeover bid or currently active cases, the foreign investors may try to delay the review process by CFIUS the end of the transaction or to provide negative information to the Committee to undermine the potential competitors to prevent the transaction is approved.

In addition to the company's impact on foreign mergers and acquisitions, the business of the United States also have an impact. That awareness of foreign direct investment on the U.S. economy is so important to increase the review process and the strengthening of supervision may be a negative impact on the domestic economy, which produced such a view of foreign investors in order to complete transactions, and hinder the national safety standards. In addition, the United States will consider target companies in their business decision-making system relative to the national security review of the additional time and risk. Finally, investors may change their investment laws to circumvent the requirements of national security review.


U.S. approach:
As mentioned earlier, although there are still many American scholars now question the reforms enacted after the FINSA CFIUS and the new foreign investors will have a negative impact, but on the other hand, we should see the current U.S. national security review system in the maintenance of two were balanced in terms of positive efforts.

First, while an increase of CFIUS consideration, and there are more foreign investment into the CFIUS will view the case, but by FINSA and its detailed rules for implementation point of view, the standards by improving the physical examination and post examination procedures and external supervision , an increase of the national security review of foreign investment can be expected, while in the implementation of FINSA before, whether it is self-declaration of the Congress informed of the case or cases, the review process is optional, arbitrary, and careful, that with national safety standards compared to the U.S. government to open investment policy on a more important position. no firm view, CFIUS reviews and investigations, including to foreign investors when asked whether past behavior or future intention to consider, unless there is "reliable evidence "that the damage to national security. can be seen on U.S. policy options, or slightly better support for foreign investment.

Second, May 10, 2007, signed with the FINSA time is not far, President Bush issued a statement to reiterate that an open economy, investment and trade commitments. Statement said: "The United States strongly supports the investment in their countries, and also commitment to the United States to give stability for foreign investors fair, equitable and non-discriminatory treatment. "[7] President Bush is committed to ensuring that America remains the world's major investment in and promote open and fair trade. see the United States strengthened the protection of national security, efforts to show the United States continue to support foreign direct investment policies.

A study on the future of foreign interest in U.S. investment plan is the Ministry of Commerce of the "Invest in America initiative." Goal of this initiative is to guide international investors the advantages of investing in the United States, focusing on the promotion targeting foreign governments and investors, the state government and business. Through this initiative, to promote foreign direct investment increased in the United States, which will help American jobs and national competitiveness.


Summary:
Select any one system there are inherent weaknesses, the question will be of interest selected. Its impossible to meet all the interests of the Chinese saying goes "two evils choose the light, the minimum when the two important benefits." Therefore, CFIUS is to find a balance, to the maximum degree of protection of national security, but can not hinder the economy. The reality is constantly changing, the law is an objective reality with the development. continue to improve to taken off.



Focus II: Pan-over of Political transparency and information
FINSA developed before the U.S. Congress for the CFIUS is the least understanding of, and CFIUS also secrecy question is not actively respond to the Congress on national security review of foreign mergers and acquisitions and the signing of the findings, the White House senior men are generally authorized to carry out. [8 ] so the view from the previous cases, Congress have no confidence in the CFIUS's checks, and often interfere in the review of the CFIUS. As mentioned above, for example, caused a sensation in 2006, "the Dubai deal," even if CFIUS members agreed to approve the deal, but CFIUS review of the question, the U.S. Congress interfered eventually lead to withdrawal of Dubai Ports World acquisition of U.S. companies. Meanwhile, Congress established from CFIUS, has been dissatisfied with their work, that its standard of review is too narrow and focus only on some specific cases can not be brought to the full protection of national security. it has been asked to improve its review of the CFIUS review of standards and increase the number of cases.

In this historical background, one of the characteristics FINSA 2007 is the addition of CFIUS oversight from the Congress, as set down the legal system. The first evidence of Congress system (Certification of Congress, the CFIUS review should be in all After the investigation process and provide a written report to Congress, the report should provide the review and investigation of the transaction details. If the approval of the mergers and acquisitions, the need to ensure the transaction will not constitute a written security threat, or to ensure ease the protocol [9] ( mitigation agreement has resolved all doubt. The second is the annual report to Congress on the system, that is, the chairman of CFIUS July 31 of each year shall be the House of Representatives, the Senate Judiciary Committee to submit annual reports within the past 12 months, the CFIUS has reviewed or transactions in the investigation report to Congress.

FINSA increase the oversight role of Congress, although the one hand, widely praised, but the new system caused many problems, many scholars have the negative effect of the system into question.

The first is the process of foreign direct investment politicized. Some scholars believe that such a system enhanced congressional oversight, Congress will greatly increase the recognition and confidence in CFIUS, which can reduce interference and the blind Congress the risk of politicized . I can not agree with this view. I believe that the reporting requirements of Congress to increase foreign direct investment in the process of politicized.

In FINSA powers not given before the congressional oversight, its CFIUS review process to produce a great impact. We all know, the U.S. Congress and the country often have linked economic interests, and even many that represent the interests of these interest groups . So even if the case does not involve foreign capital to the U.S. national security issues, but only hinder potential competitors to the interests of the United States, then the relevant congressional representatives and the relevant interest groups will be to "competitiveness" or "national security" grounds to influence the CFIUS review, and ultimately meet their own interests. For example, in 2005, "CNOOC deal," the main reason is not blocked from the CFIUS review, but from the strong opposition parties in the United States pressure. But the United States Many experts believe that the merger will not affect U.S. oil security. Daniel Cato Institute Trade investigations. Chris Ward believes that this investment does not involve national security. [10] In fact, when the United States "Chevron" has the Unocal bid, but CNOOC is still to CFIUS to submit a notification, even if Unocal had already been promised by the "Chevron" acquisition. congressional opposition is fierce, and threatened China with U.S. economic interests in the present or the future will be worse, immediately after the revocation of CNOOC bid. [11] There are 2006 Dubai Ports deal, the ultimate reason for the failure is due to Political pressure, even if the CFIUS has passed the review, but due to opposition in a bipartisan Dubai Ports World eventually sold its control of American companies. can be seen, even if the legislation does not confer the right of congressional oversight, Congress for foreign direct investment in the CFIUS review process gave rise to Political influence.

FINSA implementation of the system after the appearance of congressional oversight, its review of foreign direct investment process is more politicized. Because the reporting system under the provisions of the Congress, CFIUS must review all the circumstances of the case report to Congress. So reach for many members of Congress These foreign investors on the company's secret information. many members of Congress, once loyal through the necessary investigation, to be allowed access under the CFIUS review process of foreign direct investment transactions involving secret information. In addition, the State Senate passed the Following a review of the necessary loyalty, but also be allowed access to these transactions involve the company's information, these companies are the principal place of business in their respective countries. let so many people have access to the enterprise's confidential information, may make foreign investment transactions are used for Political purposes, special interest groups will affect the review process. As Congress has become increasingly involved in frequent among the CFIUS review, whether a competitor or a target for domestic operators are likely to produce progress, delay, or hinder foreign acquisitions, which will review the original system of foreign direct investment to establish intentions. [12]
Secondly, FINSA required CFIUS to increase transparency requirements will cause the confidentiality of confidential information security concerns. Critics say, "As to the part of the review did not involve national security, public information were unnecessary, FINSA endanger the national security and corporate competition making sensitive information "[13]. FINSA commitment to confidential information, although, many people exposed to the fact that information may make acquisitions in the United States to seek opportunities for investment and discouraged investors. reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download http://www . hi138.com Summary:
FINSA to a step in the right areas, and its CFIUS review, it was the participation of the Congress to provide a platform, but on the other hand, by the existing methods, such as CFIUS to report to Congress all the information, including related transaction CFIUS consider the state factors affecting the safety of the public, will make the CFIUS review process even more politicized and more transparent, it will make a specific interest groups to encourage them to representatives in Congress to obstruct or delay in the review or approval process, but also due to excessive the provision of corporate information and details for potential overseas investors and domestic companies have had a goal hindered. So after the reform bill to make more effective and meet the past for all things foreign investment requirements, Congress must ensure not only compliance with such a demanding too transparent and highly politicized review process. Congress must establish the appropriate regulatory system, to restrain those with access to foreign direct investment, trade secret information of people.


Concerns focus on three: the U.S. worries about sovereign wealth funds invasion

(A purchase and the United States to encourage foreign investment concerns of sovereign wealth funds
Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs, international investment banks in 2005 have created a new word. It refers to "one country, the government through a specific tax and budget allocation, renewable natural resource revenues and the accumulated balance of payments surplus, etc. formed by the Government control and domination, usually in the form of foreign currency held by the public wealth. "[14] U.S. Treasury sovereign wealth fund is defined as" created by foreign exchange assets of government investment tool for the management of these assets is different from the official reserve currency Administration's management. "[15] According to this definition, these funds with all other countries are qualitatively different investment mechanisms, such as central bank reserves, the state-owned enterprises, and state pension funds. [16]
In fact, sovereign wealth funds as early as 50 years in the last century, had appeared only recently in the international community caused widespread concern .1953, the Kuwait oil export revenues by the Kuwait Investment Board was established to invest in international financial markets, is considered for now well-known first sovereign wealth fund investments. [17] such a fund is to allow sovereign countries in the budget for the remaining part of the investment in the property investment market in order to obtain higher returns. But more and more the SWFs in the capital and equity markets on worries of many inputs, the two most important issues. First, the fund may be subject to government control and in the strategic or political motives rather than purely economic motives. s Second, SWFs are not fully transparent. it can be assumed, with the investment of these funds continue to increase the scope and frequency, these problems will intensify. on SWFs concerns about these issues the inevitable result is that, worry about the destruction of the host used for national security.


(B United States the protection of national security, SWFs
The United States the issue of how to deal with SWFs, ambivalence is obvious. The one hand because of its 2007 financial crisis hit the economy, only to find a way to retain SWFs invest in U.S. financial markets, but it is worried about the dollar and financial markets, SWFs the impact of fear of the countries most important use SWFs to control its high-tech, resources and military class enterprise ultimately affect its national security. For example, U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Clay Lowery, says that those who trade surplus huge national investment funds managed by the rapid growth of the sovereign, but do not know the money gone these SWFs is difficult to completely rule out the unprecedented and reckless risk management initiatives to bring greater impact on the possibility of the need to enhance transparency. the United States Cox, the Securities and Exchange Commission, ϯ����˹�ล even suspect, SWFs will use a lot of behind the scenes the government spy agencies to collect information for insider trading.

Can be seen at this stage the U.S. government for SWFs invest in domestic national security issues arising from the protection of great concern. The one hand, to take into account the domestic economic situation, not to take drastic measures against SWFs, on the other, and therefore from the nature of SWFs bring national security considerations, but also must take the necessary measures to .2007 into force on October 24 the <<foreign investment in 2007 and the National Security Act amendments>> to strengthen the U.S. Treasury on foreign investment in U.S. assets review and limitations of power. Many analysts believe CFIUS will monitor the activities of SWFs play a role. U.S. Treasury Department that the bill has reached a delicate balance, both to protect the interest of the United States did not increase more investment and trade barriers. However, a large number of scholars and domestic mainstream media that the negative impact of the SWFs, CFIUS's security review also totally inadequate. SWFs U.S. Congress began an investigation into the U.S. for the potential impact of foreign direct investment. Similarly, the Ministry of Finance had already opened with the SWFs in the Director of the dialogue as a way to resolve this issue and as a response to queries from members of Congress.

In such circumstances, the U.S. proposed the use of creative scholars in British history of the "golden share" approach to protect the national security impact of SWFs. This deserves attention.

1. The so-called "golden share"
"Golden shares" (Golden share), also known as the Special Unit, privileges, repayment of preference shares or privilege, first appeared in the late 20th century, the British government of 70 state-owned enterprises restructuring process. Britain in the implementation of the privatization of state-owned enterprises , in order to ensure the country, the Government's interest, the British Government in the transfer of state-owned shares at the same time, issued by the Government or the Ministry of Finance holds a "golden share", that the privilege preferred stock, the British government - by holding a "golden share" - is still some companies to retain certain powers as to protect its sovereignty and national security means. [18]
"Golden share" is different from the common and preferred stock, it does not represent any property rights, "golden share" is not only not voting common stock, and it has no general right of stock returns. Meanwhile, the "golden share" can not to guarantee or collateral. but the "golden share" shareholders are usually entitled to require the company to buy back some of their holdings of "golden shares", or "golden shares" convert into common stock. The "golden share" the most critical special the right is the "golden share" of shareholders (usually the government) holds the major business decisions in the company's "veto power." deny the right, but not for this particular appointment and removal of corporate management, production management and distribution and other general areas of competence.

2. In the protection of national security advantages
Although gold shares suffered because of anti-competitive nature of the criticism, but when national security at risk, their play is more than any other distinct advantage review process. In these advantages, the first and most important thing is really tough as these measures, national industry trying to take over the foreign forces will not be affected by the intent. controlled by the host country industry to ensure that frustrated the intention of hostile takeover and makes the protection of core industries. Second, through the golden share control of business decisions, the host government can be more tight control of company directors. Despite criticism that as the BAE System and Roll-Royce under the control of the company in which there were considerable difficulties, but should be noted that the buffer proposed CFIUS agreement also often contain a similar requirement, for example, sensitive American companies and held senior positions in industry requirements.

3 gold stocks in the protection of the application of the United States
In the U.S. implementation of the improved gold shares, as a means of protecting particular economic sector, although a stringent measure, but can the issue of national security level to provide specific protection, which is FINSA and can not meet the provisions of CFIUS . In addition, when using this more restrictive measures, which provided the world with a clear message, only the U.S. government for the protection of foreign acquisitions of some of the most important asset.

In Britain, the gold shares originated in the privatization of government-owned company, when the government give up the ownership of a company like Shihai retain certain of the shares. However, in the United States, in particular the right of companies to obtain a specific way should be taken to the contrary, the Government through the purchase of specific, control of important industries in order to protect national security. This can be achieved through the equity markets, the parent company by the purchase of all government related to national security, the specific company. Another way the Government can pass legislation to control some special industries.

To make the right play, the proposal of the method must be strictly limited to a small range of companies and industries. This program can be carried out in the CFIUS review, as long as such a review is still relatively relaxed. Just said the proposal should be directly caused the attention of Congress, CFIUS review was too lenient, and by some of the most sensitive industries abstracted from the CFIUS review it and then protect them from foreign takeover threat. so that the rest of the CFIUS review of the entities under to be less a threat to national security, and joint agency review of the traditional liberal concerns can also be a little less more.


Summary:
The face of new SWFs investment inevitably require the Government to adopt new means to regulate. With the CFIUS review of unpredictable compared, improved methods gold equity brought by SWFs in the protection of national security are obvious advantages - It can range in a specific impact on SWFs, because SWFs are trying to invest in domestic industries golden share held by the Government. In the case of an appeal, brought by holders of shares can be tough protection against any potential SWF's strategic investments.

In those who are not highly sensitive industries, gold shares do not need to apply protection, such as the Dubai Ports World acquisition, should be allowed freedom of its companies to invest in the United States. In this way, to ensure strategic investment is to reduce the threat, while not Most of the investment enthusiasm of foreign investors. From the perspective of the United States, on the one hand the positive role foreign investment can be retained and that their acquisition and can be limited to national security threats are considered less of the industry. The proposal also One advantage is clear the U.S. government's investment from SWfs open mind, since the credit crisis can help to keep large companies and financial entities.

Therefore, the face of the United States most concerned about the SWFs, legislators can consider the legislation out of the traditional model, scholars consider the above-mentioned methods.

References:
1, Christopher M Weimer. Foreign Direct Investment and National Security Post-FINSA 2007, Texas Law Review; Feb 2009; 87,3; ABI / INFORM Global
2, Joanna Rubin Travalini. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: Achieving a Balance Between National Economy Benefits and National Security Interests, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business; Summer 2009; 29,3; ABI / INFORM Global
3, Rahul Prabhakar; Deal-Breaker: FDI, CFIUS, and Congressional Response to state Ownership of Foreign Firms; http://ssm.com/abstract=1420790
4, Edward Graham and David Marchick, US National Security and Foreign Direct Investment (Washington, DC: institute for International Economics, 2006) 16-17.

5, US Treasury, "Overview of the CFIUS Process." Access May 10, 2009, http:// www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affairs/cfius/overview.shtml/
6, Jonathan C. Stagg, "Scrutinizing Foreign Investment: How Much Congressional Involvement is Too Much?" 93 lowa L. Rev. 325 (2007) 7.

7, CSEKang, "USPolitics and Greater Regulation of Inward Foreign Direct Investment," International Organization 51.2 (1997)
8, Susan Liebeler and William H. Lash III. "Exon-Florio: Harbinger of Economic Nationalim?" Cato Review of Business & Government, Accessed May 9, 2009, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regb16nl / reg16nld.html
9��Nicholas Rummell, Treasury Unveils Principles on Sovereign Funds Just as 3Com Deal Craters, FIN.WK.,Mar. 21, 2008, http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?ALD=/20080321/reg/839737987.

10��Cash-Rich Sovereign Funds Make New Investments, supra note 96.

11��ʷ�ʴ�.�й�����������2009[M].����:���ɳ�����,2009.

12����Ρ.�й���������.2009[M].����:�й����ڳ�����,2009
13��Ҷ��.���ʲ���������ҵ�ķ��ɷ���[M].����:���ɳ�����,2008
14����С��.����.�������ʲ������Ұ�ȫ����������·�չ������ʾ[J]�����о�,2008,(6
15����ɳƽ.��С��.�������ʲ������Ұ�ȫ����ƶ�̽��[J]���ⷨ����ʷ�,2008,(3
16��������.�������ʼ���й��Ұ�ȫ����ƶ��о�.[J].��ѧ��־
17���ν�һ.���ʲ����еĹ��Ұ�ȫ����ƶ��о�[J].������̳,2009,(5
18������԰.��"���Ұ�ȫ���"�������ҹ������ʲ�������[J].��ѧ�۴�,2009
19����һ��.�ҹ����Ұ�ȫ����ƶ�֮���ܶ�λ�������������Ұ�ȫ����ƶȱȽ�[J].���ϴ�ѧѧ����ѧ��,2009(1
20����һ��.���Ұ�ȫ����뷴¢�Ϸ���������Э�����Բ�ҵ��ȫ����Ϊ�ӽ�[J].�ӱ���ѧ,2009,(5
21��������.���������·�����ǿ������� ����Ͷ�ʽ��ܿ���,�л�����ʱ��,2007,3,6
22����ʢ��.Ѱ��Ͷ�ʿ�������Ұ�ȫ����ƽ�⡪�����������ʲ����еĹ��Ұ�ȫ����ƶȼ�����й������Ľ��[J].���ʾ��÷�ѧ��,2007 (1), ������ѧ������2007���,��20ҳ




Notes:
[1] Paul I. Djurisic, The Exon-Florio Amendment: National Srcurity Legislation Hampered by Political and Economic Forces, 3 DEPAUL BUS. LJ 179,180(1991)
[2] Deborah M Mostaghel,Dubai Ports World Under exon-florio:A Threat to National Security or a Tempest in a Seaport?, 70 ALB. L. Rev. 583, 588-89 (2007)
[3] Mamounas, supra note 1, at 393
[4] See HR 5337[109th]: National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2006, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5337;S.3549[109th]" Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2006, http://www.govrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-3549
[5] Ҳ����Ϊ"����Э��"��"����Э��"��"��ΣЭ��",���������ʲ������׸������������ʲ������Ұ�ȫ���ǣͷ����֮��ͼ�����Ұ�ȫDZ����в��ɵ�Э��.ͨ����Э��,�������Ͷ��ίԱ��ḽ������׼���������.

[6] ��С��,����:<<�������ʲ������Ұ�ȫ����������·�չ������ʾ>>,�����о�,2008,6.

[7] US Dep's OF STATE, UNITED STATE��JAPAN INVESTMENT INITIATIVE 2007 REPORT 12(June 2007),available at http:// www. state. gov/ documents/organization/86189.pdf.

[8] ��С��,����:��С��,����:<<�������ʲ������Ұ�ȫ����������·�չ������ʾ>>,�����о�,2008,
[9]Ҳ����Ϊ"����Э��"��"����Э��"��"��ΣЭ��",���������ʲ������׸������������ʲ������Ұ�ȫ���ǣͷ����֮��ͼ�����Ұ�ȫDZ����в��ɵ�Э��.ͨ����Э��,�������Ͷ��ίԱ��ḽ������׼���������.

[10] �μ�������:<<���������·�����ǿ������� ����Ͷ�ʽ��ܿ���>>,<<�й�����ʱ��>>2007��3��6��
[11] Graham and Marchich(2006) 129-134
[12] Susan W. Liebeler & William H. Lash III, Exon-Florio: Harbinger of Economic Nationalism?, 16 CATO REV. BUS. & GOV'T. 44(2008), available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv16nl/v16nl-6.pdf.

[13] Stagg, supra note 5, at 357
[14] http://baike.baidu.com/view/1174598.htm
[15] US DEP'T PF THE TREASIRY, SEMIANUAL REPORT ON INTERNAAIONAL ECONOMIC AND EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES app. 3, at 1 (2007), available at http://www.ustreas.gov./offices/international-affairs/economic-exchange-rates/pdf/2007_Appendix-3.pdf
[16] See Kimmitt, supra note 92, at 119 (distinguishing SWFs from three classes of sovereign investments)
[17] Robert M. Kimmitt, Public Footprints in Private Markets, 87FORIGN AFF., Jan.-Feb. 2008, at 119, 119; see also Kuwait Inv. Auth., About the Kuwait Investment Office, http://www.kia.gov.kw/NR/exeres/73CF85E2-0C5A-4060-B94B-54E2D9EDA231.htm (detailing the history of the fund)
[18] ����������:<<����������Ӫ��֮�о�����Ӣ������̸��>> ת���� ��������������� http://www.hi138.com