ICSID仲裁庭的管辖权扩大趋势研究

发布时间：2018-01-17 21:04

本文关键词：ICSID仲裁庭的管辖权扩大趋势研究　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着经济全球化进程的加快,资本跨国流动与合作越发紧密。然而各国政治经济环境中的不稳定因素致使海外投资者与东道国之间经常发生投资争端。如今,解决投资争端国际中心(ICSID)为解决国际投资争端的重要的途径,渐渐成为国际投资争端解决机制中的不可或缺的一环。中心管辖权主要体现在中心管辖权的条件和中心管辖权的排他性上,具体体现在《华盛顿公约》第25条至27条之中。实践中,大多数案件为仲裁案件,且在中心管辖权的问题上曾产生争议。ICSID行使管辖权有三个要件:第一,争端当事人适格,第二,争端性质适格,即须是直接因投资而产生的法律争端;第三,争端当事人书面同意。同时,虽然《华盛顿公约》对ICSID的管辖范围规定了诸多限制,不过仲裁庭裁定管辖权问题时,亦趋于采取从宽解释。主权国家作为国际法上的独立主体,ICSID行使管辖权的前提应当是获得主权国家“书面同意”,而现在的管辖权扩大的趋势应当给予足够的重视。本文采用文献研究、比较研究、实证研究、以及归纳演绎的研究方法对目前仲裁庭常用的扩大管辖权之手段进行总结分析、找出原因并提出我国对策。经过案例分析和对比,结合具体案例笔者详细分析了仲裁庭的论述并对部分做法提出不同观点。ICSID仲裁庭扩大管辖权的表现主要有:1、宽泛解释“投资”定义,如CSOB诉斯洛伐克共和国案,仲裁庭认为当整个商业过程足以构成“投资”,那么其中的某项交易也应属于“投资争端”;2、利用同意仲裁条款扩大管辖权:(1)扩张“同意”的范围,包括:利用“类推”的方式寻找投资协议之间的关联性,将涉案没有约定ICSID争端条款的协议与有ICSID争端解决条款的协议进行关联,从而满足ICSID对“同意“的要求,如SOABI v.Senegal案。对解释条款中的词汇采用其更宽泛的含义,从而扩大管辖权,如谢业深诉秘鲁案,仲裁庭认定“涉及征收的争议”包含于“涉及征收补偿的争议”之中,所以归属于“同意“范畴,进而扩大管辖权等。(2)延伸“同意的”主体,包括采用“间接外来控制”标准,即法人的国籍的判定要考察间接控制人的国籍,以便赋予法人某一缔约国国民的地位,如SOABI案。(3)无视特殊主体的法律地位,如谢业深诉秘鲁案仲裁庭认为既然香港属于中国,香港居民谢业深也必然就是中国国民,所以生硬地得出香港居民也应受到中国-秘鲁BIT的保护,忽视了香港因高度自治所具有的特殊法律地位。3、扩大对BIT相关条款的释明和适用。包括(1)利用MFN条款扩大管辖权。即当MFN条款的基础条款不如第三方条约给予的待遇优越时,可以通过MFN条款让当事方享受到第三方条约的优惠待遇,如Maffezini诉西班牙案。(2)利用保护伞条款扩大管辖权。保护伞条款就是那些在国际投资条约中约定东道国政府应遵守其做出的承诺的条款,如某BIT约定“缔约方应当履行对投资者在其境内的特定投资承担任何责任的义务”,仲裁庭把该条款扩张理解成任何争端都可用该BIT保护,从而满足ICSID管辖条件之一的“因投资而引起的法律争端”,如SGS诉菲律宾案(3)利用岔路口条款扩大管辖权。投资者与东道国发生投资争议时,投资者只能择一选择将争端提交国际仲裁,或是诉诸于东道国国内法院,投资者的选择是终局的。当投资者诉诸国内救济后又提请ICSID仲裁时,ICSID通过尽力认定诉诸国内救济的争端不是“相同争端”,尽力使投资者不触发岔路口条款从而获得ICSID管辖,如CMS Gas Transmission Company诉阿根廷案、MEC诉埃及案笔者认为管辖权扩大趋势定会给ICSID造成一定影响:1、管辖权的扩大将易造成错误的“先例”,即使ICSID仲裁时前案对后案不具有法律约束力,但错误的“先例”将不利于维护ICSID仲裁的可预见性;2、有损于ICSID的公正性和可信度。传统上解决投资争端方式主要有外交保护、经济制裁甚至军事威胁、向国际法院提起诉讼、投资者向东道国的司法机关、行政机关寻求救济。但传统做法常侵犯东道国主权和独立,不符合时代潮流的发展,投资者也易对东道国救济公正性产生担忧等弊端,而为解决上述弊端建立起的ICSID的基础正是公平公正。ICSID扩大管辖权的趋势正在蚕食中心的公正性,且已经给阿根廷带来了一场仲裁危机。3、降低条约解释的权威性,根据国际法,国际条约的解释应当按照既有的国际习惯法以及《维也纳条约法公约》在国际法范畴内进行,过分自由的解释条约将打破来之不易的条约解释的权威性;4、侵害发展中国家的利益,将其置于ICSID滥诉风险之下。各种扩大管辖权的手段使发展中国家在BITs中设立的选择性接受ICSID管辖的机制流于形式,管辖权的扩大化让东道国完全暴露在ICSID全面管辖之下使其面临滥诉的风险,有损发展中国家的利益和独立。接着笔者尝试分析ICSID仲裁庭扩大管辖权的动因:1、ICSID仲裁案件不必遵循先例,案件之间相互独立。在同样的问题上即便已有例在先,仲裁庭也可以做出截然相反的裁决,而不必受先例拘束。仲裁的相互独立性从根本上赋予了充分发挥仲裁员自由裁量权的权利,同时减损了ICSID仲裁的可预见性,也为管辖权扩大留下了渠道。2、缺少上诉机构。一裁终局对于平等主体之间的国际商事仲裁在提高效率上有重要意义,但是投资者-东道国投资争端是涉及到主权国家的公共利益的,一裁终局原则的适用值得商榷。ICSID虽设定有仲裁的撤销机制,但是审理撤销请求的专门委员会仍然是一个临时机构,且不需遵循先例,其对维护ICSID裁决的连贯性作用不大。3、仲裁员的对投资自由化认同的倾向性。深受西方教育的影响的仲裁员易于侧重市场在国际资本流动中的作用,更愿采纳保护投资者的价值取向,他们倾向于认为东道国掌握着和制定着国内的救济程序、掌握着订立BITs的权利,而投资者只是这一切的承受者,所以应当保护处在弱势一方的投资者。4、ICSID仍处在发达国家主导之下,与发达国家的关系十分密切。对此,笔者认为:1、我国应当坚持完善国际投资争端解决体系而不是完全抛弃现在有体系。通过BIT的调整和对ICSID改革的呼吁,来完善国际投资争端解决机制;2、明确国内特别主体的法律地位。通过外交照会中外BIT缔约国、修改中外BIT以及依照《华盛顿公约》第25条第4款向ICSID做出通知这三种方式,明确中外BIT不当然适用于香港、澳门特别行政区;3、完善中外BIT,细分争端解决条款中的“同意”的范围,根据不同的缔约国,约定不同的接受ICSID管辖的条款。在与发达国家签订的BIT中采取“有限同意”模式,与发展中国家签订的BIT中采取“全面同意”+“重大安全例外”模式。设定MFN条款的适用例外,灵活设立“岔路口”条款、慎用“保护伞”条款;4、在程序上,呼吁ICSID建立上诉机构并且加强对仲裁员倾向性研究。
[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.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D997.4

【相似文献】