論國際投資條約中的岔路口條款
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-25 08:13
【摘要】：本文分四個部分。第一部分介紹投資協(xié)定中的岔路口條款的概念,并介紹了一下岔路口條款的起因,即晚近國際投資實踐中,東道國堅持一旦投資爭端發(fā)生,外國投資者需用盡東道國當?shù)鼐葷欢鈬顿Y者則堅持提交國際仲裁。在雙方的各退一步的妥協(xié)之下,產(chǎn)生了岔路口條款。即外國投資者可以選擇將爭端遞交給國際仲裁庭進行處理,或是選擇在東道國起訴或國內(nèi)仲裁的方式。本文接著介紹了典型的投資條約中對于岔路口條款的表述方式。 第二部分介紹了岔路口條款的仲裁實踐。主要是介紹了ICSID審理的四個案件的案情和ICSID對他們的裁決結(jié)果。這三個案例是Compania de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A.Compagnie Generale des Eaux v.Argentine Republic案, Pantechniki S.A. Contractors Engineers v. Republic of Albania案, Toto Costuzioni Generali S.P.A.v. Republic of Lebanon案。 第三部分是國際仲裁庭對于岔路口條款適用的評析。是否在ICSID仲裁實踐中已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)對岔路口條款的裁決?通過上述幾個案例我們可以得出結(jié)論,國際仲裁實踐中已經(jīng)有對于岔路口條款的裁決。那么這幾個案例裁決結(jié)果不同,ICSID仲裁庭在適用岔路口條款時是如何解讀?本文認為ICSID主要是通過判定原告提交東道國國內(nèi)司法程序的爭端與提交國際仲裁的爭端是否為同一爭端來裁決的,認為投資者的合同訴求與條約訴求是不同的。比如,仲裁庭認為訴訟主體不一樣,訴因不一樣,以及訴求的法律依據(jù)不同,那么這樣的兩個爭端就不會被認定是同一爭端,那么國際仲裁庭就有管轄權(quán)。有學者認為仲裁庭一向不樂于受理先前已經(jīng)選擇了訴訟程序的抗辯。有學者認為國際仲裁庭是運用了既判力原則來裁決,不適用岔路口條款主要是因為對其進行了過于嚴苛的解釋,而這樣的解釋不利于保護東道國的利益只利于保護投資者。實際上提交國內(nèi)程序和提交國際程序的各方當事人可能不盡相同,因為爭議是由當?shù)亟M建的公司提交國內(nèi)法庭的,通常是合資公司,因為合資公司是對外投資的手段。而外國投資者通常會是母公司。但他們的訴求可能會有同樣的目的。于是仲裁實踐中又出現(xiàn)了對岔路口條款的新的解讀方式,即不單純審查當事人是否一致,而是審查是否有相同的訴求主題。如果訴求的主旨相同,那么認定為同一訴求,這可以說是仲裁庭的一個進步。但是由仲裁庭的解讀也引發(fā)的一些問題。比如,仲裁庭怎么能夠?qū)κ裁词菞l約訴求什么是合同訴求來定性?這些也是值得人考慮的。由于實際中仲裁庭可能針對同樣類型的條款做出不同的裁決結(jié)果,甚至推翻自己原來的裁決,因此引發(fā)了各國對于ICSID仲裁庭對于解讀岔路口條款是否存在不公正的擔憂。這表現(xiàn)在有很多國家開始對ICSID不信任。如玻利維亞,聲稱拉丁美洲很多發(fā)展中國家從沒贏過,總是跨國大公司會贏。尼加拉瓜聲稱要從ICSID中撤出,厄瓜多爾聲稱要排除在投資條約中對ICSID管轄權(quán)的適用。一些非政府組織和學者也開始擔心,不同國家的發(fā)展狀況會影響ICSID的裁決結(jié)果。這樣的擔憂并非毫無根據(jù)。但根據(jù)仲裁庭實踐來看,沒有偏袒發(fā)達國家,打壓發(fā)展中國家。盡管ICSID機制自身有其不完善之處,但不可因此而泯滅其優(yōu)勢和成績。 最后,本文就東道國如何在BIT中完善岔路口條款的適用提出了一些建議。比如東道國在締約時須更加嚴謹,援引情勢變更修約；比如投資者需更謹慎,盡可能先啟動國際仲裁。本文對我國對于岔路口條款應有的態(tài)度也做了一定的說明。我國應以阿根廷為前車之鑒,在訂立BIT時慎重適用岔路口條款和接受ICSID管轄權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The first part introduces the concept of the fork-off clause in the investment agreement and the origin of the fork-off clause. In recent international investment practice, the host country insists that the foreign investor should exhaust the local remedies of the host country in case of an investment dispute, while the foreign investor insists on submitting to international arbitration. A fork in the road clause arises from the compromise of the parties, that is, foreign investors may choose to refer the dispute to an international arbitral tribunal for settlement, or to sue in the host country or to arbitrate in the country.
The second part introduces the arbitration practice of the fork-off clause. It mainly introduces the facts of the four cases heard by ICSID and the results of their decision by ICSID. The three cases are Compania de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. Compagnie General es Eaux v. Argentine Republic, Pantechniki S.A. Contractors Engineers v. Republic o. F Albania case, Toto Costuzioni Generali S.P.A.v. Republic of Lebanon case.
The third part is the evaluation of the application of the fork-off clause by the international arbitral tribunal. Is there any arbitration decision on the fork-off clause in the practice of ICSID arbitration? Through the above-mentioned cases, we can draw the conclusion that there is already an arbitration decision on the fork-off clause in the practice of international arbitration. How does the tribunal interpret the fork-off clause when it applies? This paper argues that ICSID mainly decides whether a dispute submitted by the plaintiff to the domestic judicial proceedings of the host country is the same dispute as a dispute submitted to international arbitration. It holds that the contractual claims of investors are different from those of treaties. Some scholars believe that the arbitral tribunal has always been reluctant to accept defences that have previously chosen the proceedings. Some scholars believe that the international arbitral tribunal has applied the res judicata principle to adjudicate. The main reason why fork-off clauses are not applicable is that they have been interpreted too harshly, which is not conducive to protecting the interests of the host country but only to protecting investors. In fact, the parties to the domestic and international proceedings may differ, as the dispute is referred to the domestic court by a locally formed company. Often, joint ventures are a means of investing abroad, whereas foreign investors are usually parent companies. But their claims may have the same purpose. Thus, in arbitration practice, a new way of interpreting the terms at a fork in the road has emerged, that is, to examine not only whether the parties agree, but whether the parties are the same. Subject of the claim. If the claim has the same subject matter, then identifying it as the same claim can be said to be a step forward for the arbitral tribunal. But the interpretation of the arbitral tribunal also raises some questions. For example, how can the arbitral tribunal characterize what is a treaty claim and what is a contractual claim? These are also worthy of consideration. Because in practice the arbitral tribunal There may be different rulings on the same type of clause, even overturning its original ruling, which has raised concerns about whether the ICSID arbitral tribunal is unfair in interpreting the fork-off clause. This is reflected in the distrust that many countries have begun to place on ICSID, such as Bolivia, which claims that many developing countries in Latin America are China. Nicaragua's claim to withdraw from ICSID, Ecuador's claim to exclude the application of ICSID jurisdiction in investment treaties, and some NGOs and scholars are beginning to worry that developments in different countries will affect the outcome of ICSID rulings. According to the practice of the arbitral tribunal, it does not favor the developed countries and suppress the developing countries.
Finally, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how the host country can improve the application of the fork-off clause in BIT. For example, the host country should be more rigorous when signing a contract, invoke circumstance change to amend the contract; for example, investors should be more cautious and start international arbitration as soon as possible. China should take Argentina as a precursor and apply the terms of intersection and accept ICSID jurisdiction carefully when BIT is made.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.4
本文編號：2202296
[Abstract]:The first part introduces the concept of the fork-off clause in the investment agreement and the origin of the fork-off clause. In recent international investment practice, the host country insists that the foreign investor should exhaust the local remedies of the host country in case of an investment dispute, while the foreign investor insists on submitting to international arbitration. A fork in the road clause arises from the compromise of the parties, that is, foreign investors may choose to refer the dispute to an international arbitral tribunal for settlement, or to sue in the host country or to arbitrate in the country.
The second part introduces the arbitration practice of the fork-off clause. It mainly introduces the facts of the four cases heard by ICSID and the results of their decision by ICSID. The three cases are Compania de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. Compagnie General es Eaux v. Argentine Republic, Pantechniki S.A. Contractors Engineers v. Republic o. F Albania case, Toto Costuzioni Generali S.P.A.v. Republic of Lebanon case.
The third part is the evaluation of the application of the fork-off clause by the international arbitral tribunal. Is there any arbitration decision on the fork-off clause in the practice of ICSID arbitration? Through the above-mentioned cases, we can draw the conclusion that there is already an arbitration decision on the fork-off clause in the practice of international arbitration. How does the tribunal interpret the fork-off clause when it applies? This paper argues that ICSID mainly decides whether a dispute submitted by the plaintiff to the domestic judicial proceedings of the host country is the same dispute as a dispute submitted to international arbitration. It holds that the contractual claims of investors are different from those of treaties. Some scholars believe that the arbitral tribunal has always been reluctant to accept defences that have previously chosen the proceedings. Some scholars believe that the international arbitral tribunal has applied the res judicata principle to adjudicate. The main reason why fork-off clauses are not applicable is that they have been interpreted too harshly, which is not conducive to protecting the interests of the host country but only to protecting investors. In fact, the parties to the domestic and international proceedings may differ, as the dispute is referred to the domestic court by a locally formed company. Often, joint ventures are a means of investing abroad, whereas foreign investors are usually parent companies. But their claims may have the same purpose. Thus, in arbitration practice, a new way of interpreting the terms at a fork in the road has emerged, that is, to examine not only whether the parties agree, but whether the parties are the same. Subject of the claim. If the claim has the same subject matter, then identifying it as the same claim can be said to be a step forward for the arbitral tribunal. But the interpretation of the arbitral tribunal also raises some questions. For example, how can the arbitral tribunal characterize what is a treaty claim and what is a contractual claim? These are also worthy of consideration. Because in practice the arbitral tribunal There may be different rulings on the same type of clause, even overturning its original ruling, which has raised concerns about whether the ICSID arbitral tribunal is unfair in interpreting the fork-off clause. This is reflected in the distrust that many countries have begun to place on ICSID, such as Bolivia, which claims that many developing countries in Latin America are China. Nicaragua's claim to withdraw from ICSID, Ecuador's claim to exclude the application of ICSID jurisdiction in investment treaties, and some NGOs and scholars are beginning to worry that developments in different countries will affect the outcome of ICSID rulings. According to the practice of the arbitral tribunal, it does not favor the developed countries and suppress the developing countries.
Finally, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how the host country can improve the application of the fork-off clause in BIT. For example, the host country should be more rigorous when signing a contract, invoke circumstance change to amend the contract; for example, investors should be more cautious and start international arbitration as soon as possible. China should take Argentina as a precursor and apply the terms of intersection and accept ICSID jurisdiction carefully when BIT is made.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.4
【引證文獻】
相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前1條
1 徐晶;ICSID仲裁庭擴大管轄權(quán)問題研究[D];外交學院;2013年
，本文編號：2202296
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2202296.html
