本文關(guān)鍵詞：ICSID仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)大趨勢(shì)研究　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)大 ICSID 投資爭(zhēng)端

【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化進(jìn)程的加快,資本跨國(guó)流動(dòng)與合作越發(fā)緊密。然而各國(guó)政治經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境中的不穩(wěn)定因素致使海外投資者與東道國(guó)之間經(jīng)常發(fā)生投資爭(zhēng)端。如今,解決投資爭(zhēng)端國(guó)際中心(ICSID)為解決國(guó)際投資爭(zhēng)端的重要的途徑,漸漸成為國(guó)際投資爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制中的不可或缺的一環(huán)。中心管轄權(quán)主要體現(xiàn)在中心管轄權(quán)的條件和中心管轄權(quán)的排他性上,具體體現(xiàn)在《華盛頓公約》第25條至27條之中。實(shí)踐中,大多數(shù)案件為仲裁案件,且在中心管轄權(quán)的問(wèn)題上曾產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議。ICSID行使管轄權(quán)有三個(gè)要件:第一,爭(zhēng)端當(dāng)事人適格,第二,爭(zhēng)端性質(zhì)適格,即須是直接因投資而產(chǎn)生的法律爭(zhēng)端;第三,爭(zhēng)端當(dāng)事人書面同意。同時(shí),雖然《華盛頓公約》對(duì)ICSID的管轄范圍規(guī)定了諸多限制,不過(guò)仲裁庭裁定管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題時(shí),亦趨于采取從寬解釋。主權(quán)國(guó)家作為國(guó)際法上的獨(dú)立主體,ICSID行使管轄權(quán)的前提應(yīng)當(dāng)是獲得主權(quán)國(guó)家“書面同意”,而現(xiàn)在的管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)大的趨勢(shì)應(yīng)當(dāng)給予足夠的重視。本文采用文獻(xiàn)研究、比較研究、實(shí)證研究、以及歸納演繹的研究方法對(duì)目前仲裁庭常用的擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)之手段進(jìn)行總結(jié)分析、找出原因并提出我國(guó)對(duì)策。經(jīng)過(guò)案例分析和對(duì)比,結(jié)合具體案例筆者詳細(xì)分析了仲裁庭的論述并對(duì)部分做法提出不同觀點(diǎn)。ICSID仲裁庭擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)的表現(xiàn)主要有:1、寬泛解釋“投資”定義,如CSOB訴斯洛伐克共和國(guó)案,仲裁庭認(rèn)為當(dāng)整個(gè)商業(yè)過(guò)程足以構(gòu)成“投資”,那么其中的某項(xiàng)交易也應(yīng)屬于“投資爭(zhēng)端”;2、利用同意仲裁條款擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán):(1)擴(kuò)張“同意”的范圍,包括:利用“類推”的方式尋找投資協(xié)議之間的關(guān)聯(lián)性,將涉案沒(méi)有約定ICSID爭(zhēng)端條款的協(xié)議與有ICSID爭(zhēng)端解決條款的協(xié)議進(jìn)行關(guān)聯(lián),從而滿足ICSID對(duì)“同意“的要求,如SOABI v.Senegal案。對(duì)解釋條款中的詞匯采用其更寬泛的含義,從而擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán),如謝業(yè)深訴秘魯案,仲裁庭認(rèn)定“涉及征收的爭(zhēng)議”包含于“涉及征收補(bǔ)償?shù)臓?zhēng)議”之中,所以歸屬于“同意“范疇,進(jìn)而擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)等。(2)延伸“同意的”主體,包括采用“間接外來(lái)控制”標(biāo)準(zhǔn),即法人的國(guó)籍的判定要考察間接控制人的國(guó)籍,以便賦予法人某一締約國(guó)國(guó)民的地位,如SOABI案。(3)無(wú)視特殊主體的法律地位,如謝業(yè)深訴秘魯案仲裁庭認(rèn)為既然香港屬于中國(guó),香港居民謝業(yè)深也必然就是中國(guó)國(guó)民,所以生硬地得出香港居民也應(yīng)受到中國(guó)-秘魯BIT的保護(hù),忽視了香港因高度自治所具有的特殊法律地位。3、擴(kuò)大對(duì)BIT相關(guān)條款的釋明和適用。包括(1)利用MFN條款擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)。即當(dāng)MFN條款的基礎(chǔ)條款不如第三方條約給予的待遇優(yōu)越時(shí),可以通過(guò)MFN條款讓當(dāng)事方享受到第三方條約的優(yōu)惠待遇,如Maffezini訴西班牙案。(2)利用保護(hù)傘條款擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)。保護(hù)傘條款就是那些在國(guó)際投資條約中約定東道國(guó)政府應(yīng)遵守其做出的承諾的條款,如某BIT約定“締約方應(yīng)當(dāng)履行對(duì)投資者在其境內(nèi)的特定投資承擔(dān)任何責(zé)任的義務(wù)”,仲裁庭把該條款擴(kuò)張理解成任何爭(zhēng)端都可用該BIT保護(hù),從而滿足ICSID管轄條件之一的“因投資而引起的法律爭(zhēng)端”,如SGS訴菲律賓案(3)利用岔路口條款擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)。投資者與東道國(guó)發(fā)生投資爭(zhēng)議時(shí),投資者只能擇一選擇將爭(zhēng)端提交國(guó)際仲裁,或是訴諸于東道國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法院,投資者的選擇是終局的。當(dāng)投資者訴諸國(guó)內(nèi)救濟(jì)后又提請(qǐng)ICSID仲裁時(shí),ICSID通過(guò)盡力認(rèn)定訴諸國(guó)內(nèi)救濟(jì)的爭(zhēng)端不是“相同爭(zhēng)端”,盡力使投資者不觸發(fā)岔路口條款從而獲得ICSID管轄,如CMS Gas Transmission Company訴阿根廷案、MEC訴埃及案筆者認(rèn)為管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)大趨勢(shì)定會(huì)給ICSID造成一定影響:1、管轄權(quán)的擴(kuò)大將易造成錯(cuò)誤的“先例”,即使ICSID仲裁時(shí)前案對(duì)后案不具有法律約束力,但錯(cuò)誤的“先例”將不利于維護(hù)ICSID仲裁的可預(yù)見(jiàn)性;2、有損于ICSID的公正性和可信度。傳統(tǒng)上解決投資爭(zhēng)端方式主要有外交保護(hù)、經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁甚至軍事威脅、向國(guó)際法院提起訴訟、投資者向東道國(guó)的司法機(jī)關(guān)、行政機(jī)關(guān)尋求救濟(jì)。但傳統(tǒng)做法常侵犯東道國(guó)主權(quán)和獨(dú)立,不符合時(shí)代潮流的發(fā)展,投資者也易對(duì)東道國(guó)救濟(jì)公正性產(chǎn)生擔(dān)憂等弊端,而為解決上述弊端建立起的ICSID的基礎(chǔ)正是公平公正。ICSID擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)的趨勢(shì)正在蠶食中心的公正性,且已經(jīng)給阿根廷帶來(lái)了一場(chǎng)仲裁危機(jī)。3、降低條約解釋的權(quán)威性,根據(jù)國(guó)際法,國(guó)際條約的解釋應(yīng)當(dāng)按照既有的國(guó)際習(xí)慣法以及《維也納條約法公約》在國(guó)際法范疇內(nèi)進(jìn)行,過(guò)分自由的解釋條約將打破來(lái)之不易的條約解釋的權(quán)威性;4、侵害發(fā)展中國(guó)家的利益,將其置于ICSID濫訴風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之下。各種擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)的手段使發(fā)展中國(guó)家在BITs中設(shè)立的選擇性接受ICSID管轄的機(jī)制流于形式,管轄權(quán)的擴(kuò)大化讓東道國(guó)完全暴露在ICSID全面管轄之下使其面臨濫訴的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),有損發(fā)展中國(guó)家的利益和獨(dú)立。接著筆者嘗試分析ICSID仲裁庭擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)的動(dòng)因:1、ICSID仲裁案件不必遵循先例,案件之間相互獨(dú)立。在同樣的問(wèn)題上即便已有例在先,仲裁庭也可以做出截然相反的裁決,而不必受先例拘束。仲裁的相互獨(dú)立性從根本上賦予了充分發(fā)揮仲裁員自由裁量權(quán)的權(quán)利,同時(shí)減損了ICSID仲裁的可預(yù)見(jiàn)性,也為管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)大留下了渠道。2、缺少上訴機(jī)構(gòu)。一裁終局對(duì)于平等主體之間的國(guó)際商事仲裁在提高效率上有重要意義,但是投資者-東道國(guó)投資爭(zhēng)端是涉及到主權(quán)國(guó)家的公共利益的,一裁終局原則的適用值得商榷。ICSID雖設(shè)定有仲裁的撤銷機(jī)制,但是審理撤銷請(qǐng)求的專門委員會(huì)仍然是一個(gè)臨時(shí)機(jī)構(gòu),且不需遵循先例,其對(duì)維護(hù)ICSID裁決的連貫性作用不大。3、仲裁員的對(duì)投資自由化認(rèn)同的傾向性。深受西方教育的影響的仲裁員易于側(cè)重市場(chǎng)在國(guó)際資本流動(dòng)中的作用,更愿采納保護(hù)投資者的價(jià)值取向,他們傾向于認(rèn)為東道國(guó)掌握著和制定著國(guó)內(nèi)的救濟(jì)程序、掌握著訂立BITs的權(quán)利,而投資者只是這一切的承受者,所以應(yīng)當(dāng)保護(hù)處在弱勢(shì)一方的投資者。4、ICSID仍處在發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家主導(dǎo)之下,與發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的關(guān)系十分密切。對(duì)此,筆者認(rèn)為:1、我國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持完善國(guó)際投資爭(zhēng)端解決體系而不是完全拋棄現(xiàn)在有體系。通過(guò)BIT的調(diào)整和對(duì)ICSID改革的呼吁,來(lái)完善國(guó)際投資爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制;2、明確國(guó)內(nèi)特別主體的法律地位。通過(guò)外交照會(huì)中外BIT締約國(guó)、修改中外BIT以及依照《華盛頓公約》第25條第4款向ICSID做出通知這三種方式,明確中外BIT不當(dāng)然適用于香港、澳門特別行政區(qū);3、完善中外BIT,細(xì)分爭(zhēng)端解決條款中的“同意”的范圍,根據(jù)不同的締約國(guó),約定不同的接受ICSID管轄的條款。在與發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家簽訂的BIT中采取“有限同意”模式,與發(fā)展中國(guó)家簽訂的BIT中采取“全面同意”+“重大安全例外”模式。設(shè)定MFN條款的適用例外,靈活設(shè)立“岔路口”條款、慎用“保護(hù)傘”條款;4、在程序上,呼吁ICSID建立上訴機(jī)構(gòu)并且加強(qiáng)對(duì)仲裁員傾向性研究。
[Abstract]:With the accelerated process of economic globalization, cross-border capital flows and cooperation more closely. However, unstable factors of national political and economic environment in which investment disputes often occur between foreign investors and host countries. Today, ICSID (ICSID) is an important way to solve the disputes of international investment, has gradually become an international investment dispute settlement a ring mechanism in the center. The jurisdiction is mainly reflected in the center conditions and the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of the exclusive, embodied in the "Washington Convention > twenty-fifth to 27. In practice, most of the cases for arbitration cases, and in the center of the question of jurisdiction has dispute jurisdiction with.ICSID three elements: first, the dispute parties'standing, second, the nature of the dispute shall be proper, legal disputes arising from direct investment; third, the parties dispute Written consent. At the same time, although the "Washington Convention > jurisdiction over the range of ICSID provides many limitations, but the tribunal ruled that the jurisdiction problem, and also tend to take a broad interpretation. Sovereignty as an independent subject of international law on the premise of ICSID jurisdiction should obtain sovereignty" written consent ", and now the trend of expansion of jurisdiction should be given enough attention. This paper uses the literature research, comparative study, empirical research, and research methods of induction and deduction on the current commonly used means to expand the arbitration tribunal jurisdiction were also analyzed, find out the reasons and puts forward the Countermeasures of China. Through case analysis and comparison, combined with specific cases, the author makes a detailed analysis the arbitration tribunal discussed and put forward different views on the part of practice of.ICSID arbitration tribunal extension of jurisdiction is mainly: 1, broad interpretation of the definition of" investment ", such as CSOB v. Slovenia Czechoslovakia Republic case, the Tribunal finds that when the business process is sufficient to constitute the "investment", then a transaction which should belong to "investment disputes"; 2, the use of the arbitration clause of jurisdiction: agreed to expand (1) the expansion of "agree", including: the use of "analogy" way of looking for relevance of investment the agreement between ICSID, no agreement will be involved in the disputes clause agreement with ICSID dispute settlement agreement of association, so as to meet the requirements of ICSID "agree", such as SOABI v.Senegal case. Explain the terms in the vocabulary of the broader meaning, thus expanding the jurisdiction, such as Xie industry deep V Peru the tribunal found, "involving tax dispute" included in the "involving compensation for expropriation dispute", so belong to "agree" category, and then expand the jurisdiction. (2) the extension of "agreed with the main body, including the use of" indirect " The external control standard, namely the legal person's nationality determination to examine the indirect control of the nationality, in order to give the legal status of citizens of a Contracting State, such as the SOABI case. (3) the legal status of ignoring the special subject, such as Xie industry deep v. Peru arbitration tribunal believes that since Hongkong belongs to China, Hongkong residents Xie deep industry it is also the national Chinese, so stiffly Hongkong residents that should be protected China - Peru BIT, Hongkong has been ignored due to a high degree of autonomy has the special legal status of.3, expand the interpretation and application of BIT related provisions. Including (1) use the MFN clause to expand jurisdiction. That is the basis of terms as the third party when the treaty clause MFN treated superior, can MFN terms allow parties to enjoy the preferential treatment of the third party of the treaty, such as the Maffezini v. Spain case. (2) the use of Umbrella Clause to expand the jurisdiction. The umbrella clause is Those in international investment treaties agreed to host governments should abide by its commitment to the terms, such as a BIT agreement "contracting parties shall perform any responsibility for specific investors in the territory of the obligations", the arbitration tribunal to the provisions of any dispute can be understood as the expansion of the BIT protection, so as to meet the conditions under the jurisdiction of ICSID one of the "investment caused by legal disputes, such as SGS v. Philippines (3) by using the fork clause expansion of jurisdiction. Investors and the host country investment dispute, investors can only choose one option to submit the dispute to international arbitration, or resorting to domestic court host, investors choose when is final. Investors to resort to domestic remedies and draw ICSID arbitration, ICSID identified by trying to resort to domestic dispute relief is not" the same dispute ", try to make investors do not trigger terms from the fork in the road The ICSID Gas Transmission Company jurisdiction, such as CMS v. Argentina, MEC v. Egypt case I think jurisdiction expanding trend will cause certain influence to the ICSID: 1, expand the jurisdiction will cause the wrong precedent, even before the case of ICSID arbitration after case has no legal binding, but the error the "precedent" will not be conducive to the maintenance of ICSID arbitration predictability; 2, detrimental to the ICSID fairness and reliability. The traditional way to solve investment disputes are mainly diplomatic protection, economic sanctions or even military threat to the proceedings of the international court, the judicial organs of the host country to investors, but the traditional administrative organs to seek relief. It often invades the host country's sovereignty and independence, do not accord with the development trend of the times, investors are also easy to save any positive concerns about the host country and other defects, and to establish the foundation to solve the drawbacks of the ICSID is Justice fair.ICSID expanded jurisdiction trend is eating away at the center, and has brought Argentina a crisis.3, reduce the authoritative interpretation of treaties, according to international law, the international treaty shall be interpreted in accordance with the existing international customary law and the law of "Vienna Convention" in international law category, too the free interpretation of the treaty will break the treaty interpretation authority not easily won; 4, against the interests of the developing countries, the abuse of litigation risk under various ICSID. Expanding the jurisdiction means that developing countries made selective set in BITs ICSID under the jurisdiction of the acceptance mechanism of formality, the jurisdiction of the expansion of the host country to completely exposed ICSID fully control the risk of abuse, harm the interests of developing countries and independence. Then the author tries to analyze the causes of ICSID expand the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal 1, ICSID arbitration cases do not have to follow the precedent cases are independent of each other. In the same issue even existed cases earlier, the arbitration tribunal may make the opposite decision without binding precedent the independence of arbitration. Fundamentally give full play of the arbitrators discretion right. At the same time reduce the predictability of ICSID arbitration, but also for the expansion of jurisdiction left channel.2, the lack of the appellate body. A final cut for the international commercial arbitration between equal entities has important significance in improving the efficiency, but the investor state dispute is related to the sovereignty of the public interests, for a final ruling principle it is questionable though.ICSID set the revocation mechanism, but the trial committee revocation request is still a temporary agency, without precedent, the maintenance of the ICSID ruling for coherence With a little.3, orientation of investment liberalization identity of arbitrators. Deeply influenced by western education arbitrators easily focuses on the market in the international capital flows in the role, more willing to adopt the protection of the value orientation of investors, they tend to think that the host country holds and develop China's relief program, hold a BITs right, but investors are all this bear, so it should be protected in a weak side investors.4, ICSID is still in the developed countries, the relations with developed countries is very close. In this regard, the author thinks that: 1, China should insist on improving the international investment dispute settlement system is not completely abandon the system now. Through the adjustment of BIT and ICSID calls for reform, to improve the international investment dispute settlement mechanism; 2, clear legal status of domestic special subject. Through diplomatic note foreign BIT contracting, modification In accordance with paragraph fourth of Chinese BIT and the "Washington Convention > twenty-fifth to ICSID notice this in three ways, of course not clear foreign BIT applicable to Hongkong, the Macao Special Administrative Region; 3, improve the foreign BIT, subdivision of dispute settlement provisions in" consent ", according to the different parties, different agreed to accept ICSID the terms of the jurisdiction. Take the" limited consent "mode in signing with the developed countries and developing countries in BIT, BIT signed by" fully agree "+" ese "mode. Exceptions set the terms of the MFN, set up a" flexible fork "clause with" umbrella "clause in the program; 4 on the establishment of the appellate body, called ICSID and to strengthen the research of the arbitrator tendency.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙運(yùn)剛;論法院與仲裁庭的關(guān)系[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年03期

2 澤文;此種情況屬于越權(quán)裁決嗎?[J];中國(guó)對(duì)外貿(mào)易;2001年12期

3 鄧杰;論我國(guó)應(yīng)確立仲裁庭管轄權(quán)自裁原則[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年05期

4 王瀚,李廣輝;論仲裁庭自裁管轄權(quán)原則[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2004年02期

5 朱珍華;;“模擬仲裁庭”教學(xué)法研究[J];當(dāng)代教育論壇(學(xué)科教育研究);2007年04期

6 馬占軍;;我國(guó)仲裁庭組成方式的修改與完善[J];法學(xué);2009年01期

7 王學(xué)權(quán);;從辦案秘書的視角看仲裁庭審若干細(xì)節(jié)問(wèn)題[J];北京仲裁;2010年02期

8 張坤;;論仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)[J];商品與質(zhì)量;2010年S7期

9 孫威;米揚(yáng);;淺析仲裁庭調(diào)查取證制度的完善[J];中國(guó)律師;2010年12期

10 劉廣仁;;創(chuàng)新仲裁模式 流動(dòng)仲裁庭開(kāi)在百姓家[J];現(xiàn)代農(nóng)業(yè);2011年05期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 王玫黎;宋秋嬋;;法院與仲裁庭“伙伴關(guān)系”論[A];中國(guó)仲裁與司法論壇暨2010年年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

2 霍偉;;論仲裁自裁管轄權(quán)原則[A];中國(guó)仲裁與司法論壇暨2010年年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 記者 李豐;貴陽(yáng)建立“流動(dòng)仲裁庭”進(jìn)鄉(xiāng)化解矛盾[N];工人日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 本報(bào)記者 邢菲 通訊員 曹元良;全市首家鎮(zhèn)級(jí)勞動(dòng)仲裁庭臨淄開(kāi)張[N];淄博日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

3 彭麗明;仲裁庭自裁管轄權(quán)原則及其在我國(guó)的確立[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

4 王全政 記者 侯靜;流動(dòng)仲裁庭陽(yáng)光辦案受歡迎[N];廣元日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

5 廈門海事法院法官 陳延忠;缺員仲裁庭的裁決是否有效[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

6 惠正一;瑞典仲裁庭駁回達(dá)能兩項(xiàng)申請(qǐng)達(dá)娃戰(zhàn)互有得失[N];第一財(cái)經(jīng)日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

7 胡紅偉邋李靜;瑞典仲裁庭駁回達(dá)能兩請(qǐng)求娃哈哈有望獲得賠償[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2008年

8 劉鵬;許昌設(shè)立消費(fèi)糾紛仲裁庭[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2008年

9 通訊員史東兵、王吉文;吉市薩爾縣巡回仲裁庭為工人解憂[N];昌吉日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

10 唐永清;內(nèi)蒙古仲裁庭審記錄實(shí)現(xiàn)計(jì)算機(jī)化[N];中國(guó)勞動(dòng)保障報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張釩;ICSID仲裁庭對(duì)“國(guó)家責(zé)任草案”的解釋與適用研究[D];西南大學(xué);2015年

2 杜靈;論ICSID管轄權(quán)之“投資”的變化趨勢(shì)與中國(guó)之應(yīng)對(duì)[D];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院;2014年

3 丁冬;自貿(mào)試驗(yàn)區(qū)緊急仲裁庭制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

4 李元平;ICSID仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)大趨勢(shì)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

5 薛東玉;國(guó)際商事仲裁中緊急仲裁庭制度初探[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

6 魏麗萍;論仲裁庭的權(quán)力[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年

7 林文陽(yáng);論機(jī)構(gòu)仲裁中的仲裁庭組成問(wèn)題[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

8 張淼;國(guó)際體育仲裁院奧運(yùn)會(huì)臨時(shí)仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

9 周遂;論仲裁庭獨(dú)立性原則若干法律問(wèn)題[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

10 帥然;投資者與東道國(guó)投資爭(zhēng)端仲裁中的“必要性”解釋研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1437944