岔路口條款解釋研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-29 16:19
【摘要】：自二戰(zhàn)后,國際投資激增,帶來了正反兩方面影響。一方面,促進了國內(nèi)經(jīng)濟的復蘇與增長;另一方面,因海外投資環(huán)境復雜,風險較大,投資者經(jīng)濟利益無法保障。所以不少國家為了促進與保護海外投資,與他國簽訂了友好通商航海條約。后又在不斷的實踐中,為滿足不同的利益需要,逐漸演變?yōu)楹炗唶H投資條約。截至2014年,世界新增27個國際投資條約,全球國際投資條約總數(shù)已達3268個,其中雙邊投資條約2000多個。在海外投資過程中,基于締約雙方的不同利益考量,不可避免會產(chǎn)生糾紛。傳統(tǒng)爭端解決中往往規(guī)定以用盡當?shù)鼐葷鸀榍疤�。但近�?以ICSID為首的國際仲裁庭在東道國與外國投資者爭端解決中發(fā)揮重要作用。這意味著外國投資者不再以窮盡當?shù)鼐葷瓌t為必要。但為了節(jié)約訴訟資源成本,杜絕平行程序的風險,不少雙邊投資條約中都規(guī)定岔路口條款,擇一終局,以限制外國投資者的選擇權(quán)�，F(xiàn)在,已有越來越多的國家簽訂的雙邊投資條約中都包含有岔路口條款,該條款漸漸成為國際投資爭端解決的重要規(guī)范。但是在國際投資仲裁實踐中,就該條款的適用產(chǎn)生了問題:不同仲裁庭在不同案件中對岔路口條款解釋不一。分析近年來仲裁庭裁決的案例,對岔路口條款的解釋方法主要有擴大解釋、限制解釋和實效解釋。一般情況下,仲裁庭都是采用嚴格的限制解釋的方法,只要提交給東道國國內(nèi)法院與提交國際仲裁庭的爭端雙方當事人不同、訴因不同,就不認定是同一爭端,因而在此模式下還未出現(xiàn)觸動岔路口條款的案例。在擴大解釋情形下,仲裁庭往往對雙邊投資條約中的寬泛詞語進行擴大解釋,Vivendi v.Argentina案即是最好證明。但是需要注意的是,Vivendi案僅是在理論上啟動了岔路口條款,且仲裁庭進行與一般解讀相悖的擴大解釋也只是為了認同外國投資者的觀點。無論是擴大解釋抑或是限制解釋,均能發(fā)現(xiàn)國際仲裁庭的傾向:維護外國投資者的利益,忽視東道國的主權(quán)利益。這就引發(fā)了不少東道國對國際仲裁庭的不滿,仲裁正當性受到嚴重挑戰(zhàn)。直到2009年,在Pantechniki S.A.ConterctorsEngineers(Greece)v.The Republic Of Albania案中,仲裁庭采用了實效解釋方式,才第一次觸動岔路口條款。因此,這在國際社會引發(fā)討論的熱潮,也致使不少國家重拾了對國際仲裁的信心。當然,究竟采用何種方式解釋岔路口條款才是正確的、合理的,目前并無統(tǒng)一標準。隨著“走出去”與“引進來”戰(zhàn)略的加強,我國已由傳統(tǒng)的東道國身份轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)闁|道國與投資母國兼具的身份。在雙重身份情況下,我國雙邊投資條約的締結(jié)與簽訂應當與此相符合。因此,在簽訂雙邊投資協(xié)定時,應當區(qū)分不同的國家,制定不同的雙邊投資條約,這些條約中或包括岔路口條款,或不包括該條款。同時,也應當意識到,國際仲裁庭對岔路口條款的不同解釋,有些也是因為該條款本身規(guī)定的不嚴謹、不細致而引起的。因此,更應當對條款本身的含義、法律用語進行改進和完善,降低該條款被誤解的幾率。另外,我國投資條約發(fā)展歷程表明,我國對國際仲裁庭管轄權(quán)的接受越來越趨于寬松,而這將給我國帶來挑戰(zhàn)。不管怎么說,不應完全放棄“四大安全閥”,否則危害無窮。除引言和結(jié)語外,本文共分為三章。第一章對岔路口條款做宏觀介紹。首先就是介紹岔路口條款的概念以及產(chǎn)生的原因,即傳統(tǒng)國際投資中,東道國堅持一旦發(fā)生爭議,首先尋求用盡當?shù)鼐葷?而投資者更希望將爭議提交國際仲裁進行裁決,因為投資者害怕東道國法院偏袒東道國,從而損害投資者的自身利益。后來,東道國與投資者各退一步,可以由外國投資者選擇將爭端遞交給國內(nèi)法院或國內(nèi)仲裁,也可選擇提交國際仲裁庭進行仲裁,但是二者只能選一,且擇一終局,這就是岔路口條款。其次,介紹世界典型國家對岔路口條款的表述,分析岔路口條款的適用條件。第二章就ICSID仲裁庭針對岔路口條款做出裁決的實踐進行法律評析。首先,就國際仲裁庭一般采用的條約解釋方法做簡要介紹。其次,將國際仲裁庭對岔路口條款做出的解釋方法進行分類,介紹典型案例。案例包括Tza Yap Shum v.Republic of Peru案,Vivendi v.Argentina案,Hulley enterprises limited(CYPRUS)v.The Russian Federation案,Azurix v.Argentina案,Pantechniki S.A.ConterctorsEngineers(Greece)v.The Republic Of Albania案和Toto Costruzioni Generali S.P.A.v.Republic Of Lebanon案,分析仲裁庭在決定是否適用岔路口條款上,是如何解釋岔路口條款。然后,對仲裁庭的解釋做出評析,分析仲裁庭解釋是否合理以及筆者支持的解釋方法。探究仲裁庭嚴苛解釋岔路口條款的可能原因。第三章針對我國雙邊投資條約的現(xiàn)狀及岔路口條款現(xiàn)狀做優(yōu)缺點分析。在分析基礎(chǔ)上,對我國雙邊投資條約的修訂建言獻策。比如細致規(guī)定岔路口條款的解釋,規(guī)范岔路口條款語言表述。對ICSID管轄權(quán)實行全面同意加重大例外的原則。在建議的基礎(chǔ)上,針對我國情況提出一些可行的對策。比如對岔路口條款解釋進行規(guī)范;借鑒美國BIT的交易本據(jù)方法;對ICSID管轄權(quán)實行全面同意加重大例外原則;慎用岔路口條款或者不適用岔路口條款;密切關(guān)注ICSID仲裁庭的裁決,就裁決對我國不利的地方進行研究,提出應對方法。
[Abstract]:Since World War II, the surge of international investment has brought about both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, it has promoted the recovery and growth of the domestic economy; on the other hand, the economic interests of investors can not be guaranteed because of the complex and risky overseas investment environment. As of 2014, 27 new international investment treaties have been added to the world. The total number of international investment treaties has reached 3 268, including more than 2 000 bilateral investment treaties. However, in recent years, international arbitral tribunals headed by ICSID have played an important role in the settlement of disputes between the host country and foreign investors. This means that foreign investors are no longer necessary to exhaust local remedies. However, in order to save litigation resources costs and eliminate them, the ICSID-led international arbitral tribunal has played an important role in the settlement of disputes between the host country and foreign investors. Many bilateral investment treaties have stipulated fork-off clauses to restrict foreign investors'options. Now, more and more countries have signed bilateral investment treaties containing fork-off clauses, which have gradually become an important norm for the settlement of international investment disputes. In the practice of arbitration, problems arise in the application of this clause: different arbitral tribunals have different interpretations of the fork-off clause in different cases. This paper analyzes the cases awarded by the arbitral tribunal in recent years, and mainly explains the fork-off clause by expanding the interpretation, limiting the interpretation and effective interpretation. As long as the disputes submitted to the domestic courts of the host country are different from those submitted to the international arbitral tribunal and the causes of action are different, the same dispute will not be recognized as the same one, so there is no case of clauses touching a fork in this mode. The Vivendi v. Argentina case is the best proof of the interpretation. However, it should be noted that the Vivendi case only initiated the fork-and-corner clause in theory, and that the arbitral tribunal conducted an expanded interpretation contrary to the general interpretation only in order to agree with the views of foreign investors. Tendency: to safeguard the interests of foreign investors, ignoring the sovereign interests of the host country. This has led to the dissatisfaction of many host countries with the international arbitral tribunal, which has seriously challenged the legitimacy of arbitration. As a result, this has aroused a heated discussion in the international community, and many countries have regained confidence in international arbitration. Of course, there is no uniform standard on how to interpret the fork-off clause. In the case of dual identity, the conclusion and signing of bilateral investment treaties in China should accord with it. Therefore, when signing bilateral investment agreements, different countries should be distinguished and different bilateral investment treaties should be formulated, which may include forks. At the same time, we should also realize that the different interpretations of the fork-off clause by the international arbitral tribunal are also caused by the imprecise and careless provisions of the clause itself. Therefore, the meaning of the clause itself and the legal terms should be improved and perfected to reduce the probability of misunderstanding of the clause. The development of CIT shows that China's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Arbitration Tribunal is becoming more and more relaxed, which will bring challenges to China. In any case, the "four safety valves" should not be completely abandoned, otherwise the harm will be endless. In traditional international investment, the host country insists on exhausting local remedies in case of disputes, and investors prefer to refer the disputes to international arbitration for adjudication, because investors fear that the court of the host country will favor the host country, thus harming the interests of investors themselves. Later, the host country and the investor take a step backwards each. The foreign investor can choose to submit the dispute to the domestic court or domestic arbitration, or to the international arbitration tribunal for arbitration. But the two can only choose one, and choose the final one. This is the fork-off clause. Secondly, it introduces the expressions of the typical countries in the world on the fork-off clause and analyzes the fork-off. Chapter 2 makes a legal review of the ICSID arbitral tribunal's practice in awarding the fork-off clause. First, it gives a brief introduction to the general methods of treaty interpretation adopted by the international arbitral tribunal. Secondly, it classifies the interpretation methods of the fork-off clause by the international arbitral tribunal and introduces typical cases. A Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, Vivendi v. Argentina, Hulley Enterprises limited (CYPRUS) v. The Russian Federation, Azurix v. Argentina, Pantechniki S. A. ConterctorsEngineers (Greece) v. The Republic of Albania and Toto Costruzioni General S. P. A. V. Republic of Lebanon, the Analytical Arbitration Tribunal made its decision. Then, it makes a comment on the interpretation of the arbitral tribunal, analyzes the reasonableness of the interpretation of the arbitral tribunal and the interpretation methods supported by the author. It explores the possible reasons for the arbitral tribunal's harsh interpretation of the fork terms. Chapter III focuses on the status quo of China's bilateral investment treaties and fork terms. On the basis of the analysis, this paper gives some suggestions on the revision of BIT in China, such as the detailed interpretation of the terms of fork road and the standardization of the language expression of the terms of fork road. We should standardize the interpretation of fork-road clauses, draw lessons from BIT's method of transaction evidence, apply the principle of full consent aggravating major exception to ICSID jurisdiction, carefully use fork-road clauses or do not apply fork-road clauses, pay close attention to the ICSID arbitration tribunal's rulings, and study the unfavorable areas of the rulings in our country and put forward countermeasures.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D996.4
[Abstract]:Since World War II, the surge of international investment has brought about both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, it has promoted the recovery and growth of the domestic economy; on the other hand, the economic interests of investors can not be guaranteed because of the complex and risky overseas investment environment. As of 2014, 27 new international investment treaties have been added to the world. The total number of international investment treaties has reached 3 268, including more than 2 000 bilateral investment treaties. However, in recent years, international arbitral tribunals headed by ICSID have played an important role in the settlement of disputes between the host country and foreign investors. This means that foreign investors are no longer necessary to exhaust local remedies. However, in order to save litigation resources costs and eliminate them, the ICSID-led international arbitral tribunal has played an important role in the settlement of disputes between the host country and foreign investors. Many bilateral investment treaties have stipulated fork-off clauses to restrict foreign investors'options. Now, more and more countries have signed bilateral investment treaties containing fork-off clauses, which have gradually become an important norm for the settlement of international investment disputes. In the practice of arbitration, problems arise in the application of this clause: different arbitral tribunals have different interpretations of the fork-off clause in different cases. This paper analyzes the cases awarded by the arbitral tribunal in recent years, and mainly explains the fork-off clause by expanding the interpretation, limiting the interpretation and effective interpretation. As long as the disputes submitted to the domestic courts of the host country are different from those submitted to the international arbitral tribunal and the causes of action are different, the same dispute will not be recognized as the same one, so there is no case of clauses touching a fork in this mode. The Vivendi v. Argentina case is the best proof of the interpretation. However, it should be noted that the Vivendi case only initiated the fork-and-corner clause in theory, and that the arbitral tribunal conducted an expanded interpretation contrary to the general interpretation only in order to agree with the views of foreign investors. Tendency: to safeguard the interests of foreign investors, ignoring the sovereign interests of the host country. This has led to the dissatisfaction of many host countries with the international arbitral tribunal, which has seriously challenged the legitimacy of arbitration. As a result, this has aroused a heated discussion in the international community, and many countries have regained confidence in international arbitration. Of course, there is no uniform standard on how to interpret the fork-off clause. In the case of dual identity, the conclusion and signing of bilateral investment treaties in China should accord with it. Therefore, when signing bilateral investment agreements, different countries should be distinguished and different bilateral investment treaties should be formulated, which may include forks. At the same time, we should also realize that the different interpretations of the fork-off clause by the international arbitral tribunal are also caused by the imprecise and careless provisions of the clause itself. Therefore, the meaning of the clause itself and the legal terms should be improved and perfected to reduce the probability of misunderstanding of the clause. The development of CIT shows that China's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Arbitration Tribunal is becoming more and more relaxed, which will bring challenges to China. In any case, the "four safety valves" should not be completely abandoned, otherwise the harm will be endless. In traditional international investment, the host country insists on exhausting local remedies in case of disputes, and investors prefer to refer the disputes to international arbitration for adjudication, because investors fear that the court of the host country will favor the host country, thus harming the interests of investors themselves. Later, the host country and the investor take a step backwards each. The foreign investor can choose to submit the dispute to the domestic court or domestic arbitration, or to the international arbitration tribunal for arbitration. But the two can only choose one, and choose the final one. This is the fork-off clause. Secondly, it introduces the expressions of the typical countries in the world on the fork-off clause and analyzes the fork-off. Chapter 2 makes a legal review of the ICSID arbitral tribunal's practice in awarding the fork-off clause. First, it gives a brief introduction to the general methods of treaty interpretation adopted by the international arbitral tribunal. Secondly, it classifies the interpretation methods of the fork-off clause by the international arbitral tribunal and introduces typical cases. A Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, Vivendi v. Argentina, Hulley Enterprises limited (CYPRUS) v. The Russian Federation, Azurix v. Argentina, Pantechniki S. A. ConterctorsEngineers (Greece) v. The Republic of Albania and Toto Costruzioni General S. P. A. V. Republic of Lebanon, the Analytical Arbitration Tribunal made its decision. Then, it makes a comment on the interpretation of the arbitral tribunal, analyzes the reasonableness of the interpretation of the arbitral tribunal and the interpretation methods supported by the author. It explores the possible reasons for the arbitral tribunal's harsh interpretation of the fork terms. Chapter III focuses on the status quo of China's bilateral investment treaties and fork terms. On the basis of the analysis, this paper gives some suggestions on the revision of BIT in China, such as the detailed interpretation of the terms of fork road and the standardization of the language expression of the terms of fork road. We should standardize the interpretation of fork-road clauses, draw lessons from BIT's method of transaction evidence, apply the principle of full consent aggravating major exception to ICSID jurisdiction, carefully use fork-road clauses or do not apply fork-road clauses, pay close attention to the ICSID arbitration tribunal's rulings, and study the unfavorable areas of the rulings in our country and put forward countermeasures.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D996.4
【相似文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條
1 楊衛(wèi)東,郭X;雙邊投資保護協(xié)定中國際仲裁庭管轄權(quán)條款初步研究[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2004年04期
2 王偉;;淺析中菲南海爭端國際仲裁庭是否有管轄權(quán)的問題[J];才智;2014年05期
3 陳安;;區(qū)分兩類國家,實行差別互惠:再論ICSID體制賦予中國的四大“安全閥”不宜貿(mào)然全面拆除[J];國際經(jīng)濟法學刊;2007年03期
4 胡s，
本文編號：2211738
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2211738.html
