国际投资仲裁中公共健康保护的条约解释进路——以Philip Morris v. Uruguay案中VCLT第31条第3款

发布时间：2018-11-04 09:28

【摘要】：各国烟草控制措施引发了关于外国投资保护与东道国公共健康管制权冲突与协调的重大争议。老一代投资条约片面规定了不受限制的公平公正待遇和间接征收条款,不利于东道国行使正当公共健康管制权。Philip Morris v.Uruguay案仲裁庭适用《维也纳条约法公约》(VCLT)第31条第3款c项,援引习惯国际法解释和适用公平公正待遇和间接征收条款,认定东道国善意、合理、非歧视、合比例地行使公共健康管制权不违反投资条约中不受限制的公平公正待遇和间接征收条款。这表明,即使面对老一代投资条约,仲裁庭也能够通过条约解释平衡保护投资者私人权益和东道国公共健康。但是,通过条约解释保护公共健康的进路是不稳定的和不可预测的,各国应在投资条约中明确限定公平公正待遇的内容和间接征收的概念,加强保障东道国正当行使的公共利益管制权。
[Abstract]:Tobacco control measures in various countries have triggered a great controversy over the conflict and coordination between the protection of foreign investment and the right to public health control of the host country. The older generation of investment treaties unilaterally provided for unfettered fair and just treatment and indirect expropriation clauses. Prejudicing the application of article 31, paragraph 3 (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties by the arbitral tribunal in the. Philip Morris v.Uruguay case concerning the exercise of the right of the host State to exercise due public health control, invoking customary international law to interpret and apply the provisions on fair and just treatment and indirect expropriation, It is concluded that the exercise of the right of public health regulation in good faith, reasonable, non-discriminatory and proportionate by the host country does not violate the provisions of unrestricted fair and just treatment and indirect expropriation in investment treaties. This shows that, even in the face of an older generation of investment treaties, the tribunal can balance the protection of investors' private rights with the public health of the host country through treaty interpretation. However, access to the protection of public health through treaty interpretation is unstable and unpredictable, and States should clearly define in investment treaties the content of fair and equitable treatment and the concept of indirect expropriation, Strengthening the protection of the host country's legitimate exercise of the right to control the public interest.
【作者单位】：吉林大学法学院;
【基金】：中央高校基本科研业务费项目 “‘一带一路’语境下晚近国际投资争端解决的重大争议与我国的立场定位”( 2015QY005) 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地武汉大学国际法研究所 “十三五” 重大项目 “提升中国话语权与国际法律制度变革”( 16JJD820010) 的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D996.4

【相似文献】