The arbitral tribunal dismissed the suit of Ping An V. Belgium on lack of jurisdiction grounds. With respect to the determination of jurisdiction, they focused on the argument of whether Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investmentsthat entering into force in 2009 should be applied for the cases before it takes effect. Then they expanded with the interpretations of the treaty principles, the retroactive principle vs. non-retroactive principle, previous cases and alternative BIT. After that, they tried to argue the retroactivity of the Agreement comparing with this case and then concluded that many terms of the Agreement couldn’t approve themselves which could be applied for the case which had taken place before it took effect. With this conclusion, the arbitral tribunal assumed they had no jurisdiction over the case. This verdict seems to be reasonable while the procedure of analyzing isn’t logical. The real content of Article 8 of 2009BIT paragraph 1, paragraph 2, and Article 10, paragraph 2 was not well explored. It is a more reasonable interpretation that the 2009 BIT apply to disputes which have arisen before it came into force, provided that they were not already under judicial or arbitral process.