【作者】 石慧；

【导师】 丁伟；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 当前,在大量的双边投资条约(BITs)中一般都规定了“对角线条款”,即投资者可以依据条约对投资东道国提起国际仲裁。在日后的投资活动中,如果投资者与东道国之间发生争议,根据该条款提起仲裁,就产生了以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁。截至2006年11月,已知的以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁案件共有255例。涉及的被申请方国家至少有70个,其中44个来自发展中国家,14个来自发达国家,还有12个是东南欧和独联体国家。争议往往涉及东道国实施的各种政府管理措施,如保护公共健康的措施、保护金融安全的措施、保护环境的措施、进出口管制措施、贯彻执行条约的措施等。案件的标的额巨大,求偿数额动辄上百万美元,甚至高达几亿美元,即使申请人没有“胜诉”,被申请人支付的抗辩费用也相当高昂(平均100万到200万美元,包括律师费和仲裁庭费用)。通常来说,申请人也要支付这么多的费用。大量案例表明,在当前以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁实践中,普遍存在着私权对公权的挑战、多重程序以及裁决一致性缺失的困惑,以Lauder案和CME案最为典型。在这两案中,具有实质相同利益的不同当事人,依据条约义务几乎完全相同的两个不同双边投资条约,对同一个被申请人就相同的案情分别向按照相同仲裁规则组成的两个不同仲裁庭提起两个仲裁,两份仲裁裁决却几乎截然相反(在Lauder案中,裁定驳回申请人的损害赔偿请求;在CME案中,裁定被申请人须赔偿269,814,000美元及利息)。问题的根源究竟何在?为寻找答案,本文选择从评判的视角对以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁机制进行研究,提出以下命题:以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁具有不同于国际商事仲裁的独特性,而适用的机制却要么套用一种典型的或类似的国际商事仲裁机制、要么沿用一种为以契约为基础的投资仲裁设计的借用商事仲裁的机制,总之都“只是简单地来源于国际商事仲裁的隐秘世界”,这种手段与目的不符的矛盾是这种仲裁实践处于比较混乱状态的根源。围绕这一命题,本文除导言和结论外,分为三个部分:第一部分从规范分析入手,对以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的概念和性质作出阐释和判断,包括第一章和第二章;第二部分,从实践评判的角度对以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的现行机制作出诠释并加以实证考察,包括第三章和第四章;第三部分,具体探讨了以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁机制的重构问题,包括第五章和第六章。导言对选题由来、文献综述、全文基本框架、拟研究的主要问题及研究方法作了说明。第一章,阐释以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的概念,先对“以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁”这一术语的几种表达方式作了介绍,解析了该术语中的核心词(组),并对相关概念如“国际投资仲裁”、“国际混合仲裁”、“NAFTA投资仲裁”和“ICSID仲裁机制”进行辨析。然而仅凭这些尚不足以认识到这种仲裁内在深刻的独特性,所以,还需对它的性质作出分析和判断。第二章,分析以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的性质,认为在这种仲裁中,作为仲裁当事人的投资者和国家都是国际法关系主体(当然,笔者仍然认为个人作为国际法关系主体并不具有普遍性),仲裁请求权是基于国际法律秩序的条约请求权,仲裁争议事项是国家行为,体现的是公法性质。其中蕴含了投资者与国家之间一种特殊的矛盾关系以及个人利益与国家利益和社会公共利益之间的矛盾关系。这些都与国际私法关系主体参与的具有私法性质的国际商事仲裁有显著的区别。在对这种仲裁的概念和性质有了全面认识之后,接下来把视角从应然层面转切到实然层面,考察其实施机制。第三章,对以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的现行机制予以诠释,说明现行机制或者沿用一种为以契约为基础的投资仲裁设计的借用商事仲裁的机制,或者直接套用一种典型的或类似的国际商事仲裁机制,以普遍性的眼光来看,这种现行机制主要是以国际商事仲裁机制为模型或目标设计的,总之它们“只是简单地来源于国际商事仲裁的隐秘世界”。对于把这种机制用于解决不同于商事争议的以条约为基础的投资争议的做法,虽然有理由对其效果保持足够的怀疑,然而仍需要实践的检视。第四章,从Lauder案和CME案开始,对以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的现行机制在实践中的效果进行实证考察。说明在当前仲裁实践中,主要存在以下困惑:困惑之一是多重程序,包括由同一当事人提起、相关当事人提起和不同当事人提起的多重程序几种情况;困惑之二是裁决一致性缺失,主要表现为三种情况:其一,在具有相同案情、相关当事人和相似投资权利的争端中裁决不一致;其二,在具有相似案情和相似投资权利的争端中裁决不一致;其三,在具有不同案情但相同投资权利的争端中裁决不一致。困惑之三是私人利益的无限膨胀对国家主权和社会公共利益的侵蚀。甚至可以说,当前的实践状况是一种比较混乱的局面。尽管这些困惑并不是以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁实践所独有,但这种仲裁所适用的现行机制更容易引发这些困惑,使得它们在这类仲裁实践中显得尤为严重。这当然不是机制设计的本意和预期目的,于是,这种现行仲裁机制在实践检视下暴露出来的问题就把本文的视角引入到重构一种更合理的机制的思考中。第五章,为避免重构的以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁机制成为头痛医头、脚痛医脚的产物,需要对这种仲裁得以产生的历史背景进行考察,因为从中可以找寻到重构一种更合理的、应该具有前瞻性的机制所必须依赖的经济、社会和法律基础,正是在这个已经悄然发生了变化的经济、社会和法律基础中蕴含了将来重构这种仲裁机制的一些根本性的信息,即必须警醒以跨国公司为代表的私人投资者日益强大的事实,必须正视由此造成的私人投资者与国家间力量对比的变化,以及必须尊重以国际非政府组织为代表的全球市民社会的潜在力量,因为在已经失衡的投资者与国家之间的较量中,它无疑可以充当一个新的支点。第六章,具体讨论以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁机制的重构问题。在目标定位上,必须改这种仲裁现行机制的维护投资者私人利益的一维结构为平衡私人利益、国家利益和社会公共利益的三维结构;出于对现实条件的评估,在重构方案的选择上,应该以ICSID为适当场所进行程序性改革和统一化改革,以此作为近期议程;ICSID的具体改革措施涉及管辖权、建立上诉制度以及进一步增加透明度等事项。针对我国近年来由于新式BITs的缔结而面临的新形势,提出我国在现阶段既不便延续保守政策又不宜采取完全开放政策,而应采取通过完善新式BITs中与这种仲裁机制利用有关的条款以加强防守的策略。结论中,在对全文作出总结性梳理之后,根据从以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁实践和理论中所获得的启示,粗浅地阐述了对“个人能否成为国际法主体”以及“国际经济法时代已经到来”两个问题的思考。本文创新之处主要体现在:1、对以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁制度这样一个在当前学术界特别是我国学术界尚属新颖的研究对象,以评判的视角进行了比较深入地研究;2、在认识以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁的性质问题上,作出独立的判断;3、结合ICSID公约的谈判史以及ICSID公约规定中的一些线索,对ICSID机制的特点进行诠释,形成独立的见解,并提出ICSID在发展过程中的转型问题;4、运用经济学和社会学知识,对当前经济结构和社会结构的变化及其意义提出独立的观点;5、在确定重构以条约为基础的投资者与国家间仲裁机制的方案问题上,进行了独立的分析;6、对中国在新形势下适宜采取的对策提出独立的观点。更多还原

【Abstract】 Nowadays, in most bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the diagonal clause has been inserted according to which the covered investor would be able to bring arbitration against the host country. When the disputes between the investor and the state happen, there arises the treaty-based investor-state arbitration. The total cumulative number of known such cases is 255 at the end of November, 2006. At least 70 governments—44 of them in the developing world, 14 in developed countries and 12 in Southeast Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States–have faced investment treaty arbitration. The matter at dispute mainly involves all kinds of governmental measures, such as to protect environment, public health or financial safety, to control imports and exports, to implement the treaties. The claims always involve large sums, millions dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. Even assuming that a claim is unsuccessful, the cost of defense can be significant (on average $1 to $2 million, including attorneys’fees and the costs of the tribunal). Claimants typically incur similar costs.A large number of cases have demonstrated that the puzzles of private rights challenging public interests, multiple proceedings and conflict awards are very common in the investment treaty arbitration world, the most typical among which are the Lauder/CME cases. In these two cases, different claimants who had identical interests lodged two different arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rule against the same defendant under two BITs which were almost the same on substantive obligations, and the two awards were almost opposite—in the Lauder case, the tribunal denied liability of the defendant, while in the CME case, the tribunal ordered the defendant to pay to claimant $269,814,000 and interest. What is the problem?To find the answer, this dissertation has analyzed the mechanisms of treaty-based investor-state arbitration, and advanced the following proposition, that these mechanisms are modeled on or have borrowed their main elements from the international commercial arbitration, despite that the disputes to be settled under the two kinds of mechanisms have quite different natures. The fact that the means is in contradiction with the objective is the source of the conflicting situations.In addition to Introduction and Conclusion, the dissertation is divided into three parts. With a standard analysis, the first part deals with the concept and the nature of the treaty-based investor-state arbitration, including Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. The second part expounds the mechanisms of treaty-based investor-state arbitration in practice and inspects them with a case analysis, including Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. And the third part is concerning the reconstruction of the new mechanism, including Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.In Introduction part, the author first explains the origin of the research theme. Then, academic history is reviewed. The basic structure of this dissertation and major issues to be explored are defined. The methods of this research are also introduced. Chapter 1 deals with the concept of the treaty-based investor-state arbitration. At the beginning, several expressions about the concept are introduced and the key words or phrases are defined. Furthermore, the concept is discriminated with other relevant concepts such as“international investment arbitration”,“mixed international arbitration”,“NAFTA investment arbitration”and“ICSID arbitration mechanism”. As this is not enough for a deep knowledge of such arbitration, it is still to be analyzed from the nature.In Chapter 2, the nature of the treaty-based investor-state arbitration is analyzed. The author maintains that in this arbitration, the investor and the state are subject of international law, the claim that is treaty claim is based on international legal order, and the matter at dispute involves state conducts, which contains the contradictory relationship between the investor and the state, between the private interests and the public interests. All those illustrate this arbitration is of public international law nature and so distinguished from international commercial arbitration of private international law nature. Based on a general knowledge of this arbitration, next, the mechanisms in practice should be examined.In Chapter 3, the practical mechanisms of treaty-based investor-state arbitration have been expounded. They are typical or similar international commercial arbitration mechanisms, or have borrowed their main elements from the international commercial arbitration mechanism. In short, these mechanisms are modeled on or designed for international commercial arbitration, and they are simply grafted in from the secretive world of international commercial arbitration. As the treaty-based investor-state disputes are different from commercial ones, the effect of these mechanisms raises much doubt before a further inspection.In Chapter 4, the effect of these practical mechanisms of treaty-based investor-state arbitration has been inspected with the beginning of Lauder/CME cases. By illustration, the following puzzles have been revealed. One is the multiple proceedings commenced by the same claimant, the relevant claimants and different claimants. Another is conflict awards rendered by different tribunals about the same facts, related parties and similar investment rights, about a similar situation and similar investment rights and about the different facts but the same investment rights. And the third is the fact that private interests are seriously corroding state sovereignty and public interests. Even to say, the current situations are in conflict. Of course, these puzzles are also common in the whole judicial practice. However, these mechanisms of treaty-based investor-state arbitration are apt to cause the puzzles and make them especially serious in the practice of such arbitration. This is not the original desire and the expected aim of these mechanisms, and so how to reconstruct a more reasonable mechanism is the next question to be pondered over.In Chapter 5, to avoid the result that the mechanism to be reconstructed would be attending to the superficial or minor aspects only, rather than tackling the roots of a problem, the historical background where the treaty-based investor-state arbitration has evolved has been analyzed. From the background, the economic, social and legal foundations which the reconstructing mechanism is dependent on will be drawn. As the foundations have changed, that transnational corporations (TNCs) as representatives of private investors are becoming much powerful, and so the former balance between the private investors and the state has been destroyed, the function of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) as representatives of global civil society should be emphasized when reconstructing the new mechanism of treaty-based investor-state arbitration.Chapter 6 deals with how to reconstruct the new mechanism of treaty-based investor-state arbitration. The purpose of the new mechanism should be to balance the private interests, state interests and public interests instead of protecting the private interests only as is the case of the present mechanisms. In the light of reality, the plan in the near future for the reconstruction of the new mechanism should be to launch the unified reform in procedure in ICSID. The detailed measures to be carried out for ICSID reform involve jurisdiction, appellate mechanism and transparency. Considering that China is facing a new situation by signing the new model of BITs, the author suggests that at this stage, China should improve the clauses related to the use of investor-state arbitration in the new model of BITs as defensive tactics instead of conservative or overall open policy.In Conclusion part, in addition to a summary of the basic propositions in this dissertation, another two questions whether individuals can be the subject of international law and whether the international economic law day may have finally come are simply discussed, according to the theoretic and practical knowledge of the treaty-based investor-state arbitration.Some innovative points are as follows:1. A comparatively deep analysis of the mechanism of treaty-based investor-state arbitration which is the relatively new research theme in current academic circles especially Chinese academic circles has been made.2. An independent judgment is made on the nature of the treaty-based investor-state arbitration.3. Combined with the history of ICSID Convention and the clues in the Articles of ICSID Convention, an independent opinion of the character of ICSID mechanism and the division of ICSID developing course is advanced.4. With the economic and sociological knowledge, an independent view on the present changes of economic structure and social structure and the significance underneath these changes is formed.5. An independent analysis is made on how to determine the plan for the reconstruction of the new mechanism of treaty-based investor-state arbitration.6. Some independent suggestions on the tactics taken by China to deal with the new situations are brought forward.更多还原