The proposal signed by Italy, Germany, and France is pushing the European Commission to rethink its investment and trade policies in respect of Chinese investments in the European continent. Since Deng Xiaoping open-uped reform China, because of its massive market, became a receptor of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) from all over the world. This trend gradually changed with the "Going out" policy at the end of the past century. The joint effort between the State Council and the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade brought the country within the world’s top twenty investors. In 2015, Chinese outward foreign direct investments (OFDI) for the first time surpassed the stock of FDI in the country. The target of the OFDI changed as well. While during the first stage of the “going out” policy, the investments were focused on natural resources, now they are covering a wider array of economic sectors such as finance, high-end manufacturing, chemical and transportation. The major concern for European countries is whether the Chinese OFDI are following or not commercial considerations. In fact, politically-driven investments could worsen the situation of European economy. So far, the Chinese government has entered in 145 Bilateral Investment Treaties(BITs) and 24 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The initial restrictive approach to FDI in China which characterized the first stage of investment and trade policy has been gradually replaced by a more open one. In fact, since the “going-out” policy the BITs in china started to follow a model aligned with international standards. During this second phase of development for the first time compulsory investments arbitration paved its way into Chinese BITs. Since 2008, a third phase for BITs has emerged in China. The increasing importance of China as an economic super power has pushed the country to include under the BITs terms of reference effective dispute resolution clauses. As noted by Valentina Sara Vadi in her chapter “China began granting unconditional access to arbitration in its BITs with developing countries because, in relation to those countries, China behaves as a capital exporting country aiming to secure its investments abroad.” However, the BITs “with Chinese characteristics” are not only influenced by international practice but also by cultural elements. The overall preference for mediation over arbitration is a characteristic of both Chinese and Asian Investors. It probably derives from cultural elements rooted in the Confucian tradition. Harmony and the preeminence of social standards are still essential concepts not only for personal relations in China but also for Chinese investors abroad. These elements along with the country newly assumed climate change leadership might be an occasion to integrate non-trade concerns into BITs. However, as argued by Valentina Sara Vadi, even if “China seems to have embraced this balanced approach. Only time will tell if such level drafting can promote the respect of non-economic standards in practice.”