论国际投资条约中的岔路口条款
发布时间：2018-08-25 08:13
【摘要】：本文分四个部分。第一部分介绍投资协定中的岔路口条款的概念,并介绍了一下岔路口条款的起因,即晚近国际投资实践中,东道国坚持一旦投资争端发生,外国投资者需用尽东道国当地救济；而外国投资者则坚持提交国际仲裁。在双方的各退一步的妥协之下,产生了岔路口条款。即外国投资者可以选择将争端递交给国际仲裁庭进行处理,或是选择在东道国起诉或国内仲裁的方式。本文接着介绍了典型的投资条约中对于岔路口条款的表述方式。 第二部分介绍了岔路口条款的仲裁实践。主要是介绍了ICSID审理的四个案件的案情和ICSID对他们的裁决结果。这三个案例是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。 第三部分是国际仲裁庭对于岔路口条款适用的评析。是否在ICSID仲裁实践中已经出现对岔路口条款的裁决?通过上述几个案例我们可以得出结论,国际仲裁实践中已经有对于岔路口条款的裁决。那么这几个案例裁决结果不同,ICSID仲裁庭在适用岔路口条款时是如何解读?本文认为ICSID主要是通过判定原告提交东道国国内司法程序的争端与提交国际仲裁的争端是否为同一争端来裁决的,认为投资者的合同诉求与条约诉求是不同的。比如,仲裁庭认为诉讼主体不一样,诉因不一样,以及诉求的法律依据不同,那么这样的两个争端就不会被认定是同一争端,那么国际仲裁庭就有管辖权。有学者认为仲裁庭一向不乐于受理先前已经选择了诉讼程序的抗辩。有学者认为国际仲裁庭是运用了既判力原则来裁决,不适用岔路口条款主要是因为对其进行了过于严苛的解释,而这样的解释不利于保护东道国的利益只利于保护投资者。实际上提交国内程序和提交国际程序的各方当事人可能不尽相同,因为争议是由当地组建的公司提交国内法庭的,通常是合资公司,因为合资公司是对外投资的手段。而外国投资者通常会是母公司。但他们的诉求可能会有同样的目的。于是仲裁实践中又出现了对岔路口条款的新的解读方式,即不单纯审查当事人是否一致,而是审查是否有相同的诉求主题。如果诉求的主旨相同,那么认定为同一诉求,这可以说是仲裁庭的一个进步。但是由仲裁庭的解读也引发的一些问题。比如,仲裁庭怎么能够对什么是条约诉求什么是合同诉求来定性?这些也是值得人考虑的。由于实际中仲裁庭可能针对同样类型的条款做出不同的裁决结果,甚至推翻自己原来的裁决,因此引发了各国对于ICSID仲裁庭对于解读岔路口条款是否存在不公正的担忧。这表现在有很多国家开始对ICSID不信任。如玻利维亚,声称拉丁美洲很多发展中国家从没赢过,总是跨国大公司会赢。尼加拉瓜声称要从ICSID中撤出,厄瓜多尔声称要排除在投资条约中对ICSID管辖权的适用。一些非政府组织和学者也开始担心,不同国家的发展状况会影响ICSID的裁决结果。这样的担忧并非毫无根据。但根据仲裁庭实践来看,没有偏袒发达国家,打压发展中国家。尽管ICSID机制自身有其不完善之处,但不可因此而泯灭其优势和成绩。 最后,本文就东道国如何在BIT中完善岔路口条款的适用提出了一些建议。比如东道国在缔约时须更加严谨,援引情势变更修约；比如投资者需更谨慎,尽可能先启动国际仲裁。本文对我国对于岔路口条款应有的态度也做了一定的说明。我国应以阿根廷为前车之鉴,在订立BIT时慎重适用岔路口条款和接受ICSID管辖权。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.4
本文编号：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.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.4
【引证文献】
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 徐晶;ICSID仲裁庭扩大管辖权问题研究[D];外交学院;2013年
，本文编号：2202296
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2202296.html
