探究国际投资仲裁实践中条约选购问题及防范
The Problem and the Precaution of Treaty Shopping in International Investment Arbitration
DOI: 10.12677/ass.2024.134352, PDF, 下载: 90  浏览: 138 
作者: 陈沫初:华东政法大学国际法学院,上海
关键词: 条约选购国际投资国际仲裁Treaty Shopping International Investment International Investment Arbitration
摘要: 条约选购无论是从投资者的实践,还是从国际仲裁案件的数量来看,都已成为现代投资领域不可忽视的一个问题。文章第一部分对于条约选购的概念进行了界定,并总结了条约选购问题形成原因和不利影响,这是探究条约选购问题的前提。第二部分通过梳理国际仲裁中的各类案例,整理了影响国际仲裁庭识别条约选购问题的三个标准,根据这三个标准分析了仲裁庭对于条约选购的态度,总结得到条约选购问题并不是非法行为,国际仲裁庭甚至天然地会倾向于保护投资者,更多地会给国家造成损失。由此引出第三部分,即国家能够减少因条约选购问题带来的损失的三种主要的限制方法,并对三种方法进行利弊分析,以期给未来国家的条约缔结实践提供一定的建议。
Abstract: Treaty shopping has become an issue that cannot be ignored in the modern investment field, both in terms of investors’ practice and the number of international arbitration cases. The first chapter of this article defines the concept of treaty shopping and summarizes the reasons for the formation of treaty shopping, which is the prerequisite for exploring the issue of treaty shopping. In the second chapter, by sorting out various cases in international arbitration, three criteria affecting the identification of treaty shopping by international arbitral tribunals are compiled, and the attitude of arbitral tribunals towards treaty shopping is analyzed according to these three criteria, concluding that treaty shopping is not an illegal act, and international arbitral tribunals are even naturally inclined to protect investors, which causes losses to states. The third chapter introduced the resulting three main methods of restriction that states can use to reduce losses caused by treaty shopping, and analyze the pros and cons of these three methods, with a view to providing some suggestions for future state treaty-making practice.
文章引用:陈沫初. 探究国际投资仲裁实践中条约选购问题及防范[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2024, 13(4): 696-705. https://doi.org/10.12677/ass.2024.134352

参考文献

[1] Haug, S.M. (1996) The United States Policy of Stringent Anti-Treaty-Shopping Provisions: A Comparative Analysis. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 191, 204.
[2] 徐树. 国际投资仲裁中投资者的“条约选购”问题研究[J]. 国际经济法学刊, 2013, 20(2): 121-146.
[3] 黄世席. 国际投资仲裁中的挑选条约问题[J]. 法学, 2014(1): 62-73.
[4] UNCTAD/WIR (2021) World Investment Report 2021.
[5] Ekran Berhad v. People’s Republic of China (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/15) (2013).
[6] 蔡从燕. 不慎放权, 如潮官司——阿根廷轻率对待投资争端管辖权的惨痛教训[J]. 国际经济法学刊, 2006(1): 207-234.
[7] Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL (PCA Case No. 2012-12) (2011).
[8] Van Harten, G. and Scott, D.N. (2016) Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 7, 92-116.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv031
[9] [英]詹宁斯∙瓦茨. 奥本海国际法[M]. 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社,1998: 652-653.
[10] Pelc, K. (2016) Does the International Investment Regime Induce Frivolous Litigation? SSRN Electronic Journal, 1, 1.
[11] Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18) (2004).
[12] Isolux Netherlands, BV v. Kingdom of Spain (SCC Case V2013/153) (2016).
[13] 及小同. 国际投资仲裁中条约选购行为的规制研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 重庆: 西南政法大学, 2017.
[14] Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12) (2012).
[15] Aguas del Tunari, S.A. (ATSA) v. Republic of Bolivia (ICSID Decision No. ARB/02/03) (2005).
[16] Kirtley, W.L. (2009) The Transfer of Treaty Claims and Treaty-Shopping in Investor-State Dispute. The Journal of World Investment & Trade: Law, Economics, Politic, 10, 427-461.
https://doi.org/10.1163/221190009X00114
[17] AutopistaConcesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5) (2001).
[18] Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5) (2009).
[19] Chaisee, J. (2015) The Treaty Shopping Practice: Corporate Structuring and Restructuring to Gain Access to Investment Treaties and Arbitration. Hastings Law Journal, 11, Article 1.
[20] Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24) (2005).
[21] Yukos Universal Ltd. v. Russian Federation, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (PCA Case No AA 227) (2009).
[22] 余劲松. 国际经济法学[M]. 北京: 北京高等教育出版社, 2019: 261.
[23] Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7) (2000).
[24] 王燕. 欧盟新一代投资协定“反条约挑选”机制的改革——以CETA和JEEPA为分析对象[J]. 现代法学, 2018, 40(3): 156-169.