随着国际投资实践的发展，国际投资法的发展呈现出新的复杂性、不确定性和扩展性。尤其是近年来，国际投资条约仲裁案件数量的攀升，投资条约的诸多不足也暴露出来。有关实体法的模糊或缺失、程序法的缺陷等等，不仅使得东道国的主权面临挑战，也带来了投资条约仲裁的“正当性危机”。围绕着改造投资仲裁机制的学术讨论以及具体的条约改革实践正在进行当中。 在此过程之中，投资仲裁制度无疑成为关注的焦点。规定以仲裁方式解决投资纠纷已然成为各国双边投资协定中极为重要的组成部分。实践中，往往会出现不同仲裁庭就同一条款解释不一的情况。为保证条约适用的统一性，美国《2012年双边投资条约（BIT）范本》沿用了《2004年BIT范...Investment Treaties are concluded by States. Where investment treaties refer to Investor-State arbitration, arbitral tribunals interpret treaty provisions in the context of the dispute settlement. Some of these interpretations have raised concerns, because of a perceived lack of consistency, predictability and quality. The concerns have resulted in a confidence even legitimacy crisis in the arbitr...学位：法学硕士院系专业：法学院_国际法学(含国际公法、国际私法、国际经济法)学号：1362010115015

黄翔宇

Xiamen University Institutional Repository

  学校编码：10384                            分类号    密级        学号：13620101150153                                  UDC         硕 士 学  位  论  文 投资条约缔约国联合解释与仲裁庭条约解释之合理控制 ——兼评美国《2012 年 BIT 范本》第 30 条第 3 款 Joint Decisions by Contracting Parties of Investment Treaties and the Proper Control of Treaty Interpretations by Tribunals: A Study of Article 30(3) of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT   黄翔宇 指导教师姓名：蔡从燕 教授 专  业  名  称：国 际 法 学 论文提交日期：2013 年   月 论文答辩时间：2013 年   月 学位授予日期：2013 年   月   答辩委员会主席：       评    阅    人：        2013 年   月厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库   厦门大学学位论文原创性声明  本人呈交的学位论文是本人在导师指导下,独立完成的研究成果。本人在论文写作中参考其他个人或集体已经发表的研究成果，均在文中以适当方式明确标明，并符合法律规范和《厦门大学研究生学术活动规范（试行）》。 另外，该学位论文为（                            ）课题（组）的研究成果，获得（               ）课题（组）经费或实验室的资助，在（               ）实验室完成。（请在以上括号内填写课题或课题组负责人或实验室名称，未有此项声明内容的，可以不作特别声明。）  声明人（签名）：                 年   月   日 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库   厦门大学学位论文著作权使用声明  本人同意厦门大学根据《中华人民共和国学位条例暂行实施办法》等规定保留和使用此学位论文，并向主管部门或其指定机构送交学位论文（包括纸质版和电子版），允许学位论文进入厦门大学图书馆及其数据库被查阅、借阅。本人同意厦门大学将学位论文加入全国博士、硕士学位论文共建单位数据库进行检索，将学位论文的标题和摘要汇编出版，采用影印、缩印或者其它方式合理复制学位论文。 本学位论文属于： （     ）1.经厦门大学保密委员会审查核定的保密学位论文，于   年  月  日解密，解密后适用上述授权。 （     ）2.不保密，适用上述授权。 （请在以上相应括号内打“√”或填上相应内容。保密学位论文应是已经厦门大学保密委员会审定过的学位论文，未经厦门大学保密委员会审定的学位论文均为公开学位论文。此声明栏不填写的，默认为公开学位论文，均适用上述授权。）                                声明人（签名）： 年   月   日 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  内容摘要  随着国际投资实践的发展，国际投资法的发展呈现出新的复杂性、不确定性和扩展性。尤其是近年来，国际投资条约仲裁案件数量的攀升，投资条约的诸多不足也暴露出来。有关实体法的模糊或缺失、程序法的缺陷等等，不仅使得东道国的主权面临挑战，也带来了投资条约仲裁的“正当性危机”。围绕着改造投资仲裁机制的学术讨论以及具体的条约改革实践正在进行当中。 在此过程之中，投资仲裁制度无疑成为关注的焦点。规定以仲裁方式解决投资纠纷已然成为各国双边投资协定中极为重要的组成部分。实践中，往往会出现不同仲裁庭就同一条款解释不一的情况。为保证条约适用的统一性，美国《2012 年双边投资条约（BIT）范本》沿用了《2004 年 BIT 范本》第 30条第 3 款，即“缔约国双方通过各自授权代表联合作出的，对本条约条款之解释，对仲裁庭具有约束力，仲裁庭所作出的任何决定或裁决应当与解释内容相一致”。事实上，这一做法已经被包括东南亚联盟国家和澳洲国家以及中国在内的一些国家所借鉴。此类条款的出现预示着缔约国双方的解释将优于并有可能控制仲裁庭的解释权。这对于正在进行和将要进行的投资仲裁可能产生重要影响。这在国际投资仲裁实践中是少有的。鉴于美国在国际投资领域的世界影响力，极有必要认真思考缔约国联合解释的可能性或可行性。 本文拟从美国《2012 年 BIT 范本》第 30 条第 3 款关于缔约国联合解释的规定出发，通过介绍缔约国与仲裁庭在条约解释方面的权利结合与分野，结合实践投资仲裁案例对缔约国联合解释进行分析，指明缔约国解释与仲裁庭解释之间应该是互相平衡、互有制约的良性互动关系，同时探讨如何恰当运用联合解释，以期最大限度地发挥缔约国联合解释的作用，推动投资仲裁的良性发展。  关键词：国际投资仲裁；缔约国联合解释；双边投资条约解释  厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  ABSTRACT  Investment Treaties are concluded by States. Where investment treaties refer to Investor-State arbitration, arbitral tribunals interpret treaty provisions in the context of the dispute settlement. Some of these interpretations have raised concerns, because of a perceived lack of consistency, predictability and quality. The concerns have resulted in a confidence even legitimacy crisis in the arbitral tribunals. As masters of their BITs, States are becoming more concerned about this development and trying to be more proactive in assuring the consistency, predictability and quality of the arbitral awards. States have various tools at their disposal including unilateral, bilateral and multilateral. Alongside treaty re-negotiations and amendments, interpretive tools have been regarded as a useful method for addressing some of the challenges the investment dispute settlement regime faces today. The United States released the new Model BIT in 2012, in which it carried over Article 30(3) of the 2004 United States Model BIT, enabling State parties to collectively issue a joint decision on interpretations of investment treaty provisions that would be binding on the arbitral tribunals. Article 30(3) of the 2012 US Model BIT signifies the trend that States are more proactive in asserting their interpretive authority to guide tribunals towards a proper and predicable reading of BITs provisions. The thesis explores the background and controversies of the Joint Decision on interpretation and suggests a possible roadmap for future joint decision for better development of investment arbitration.  Key Words: Investment Arbitration; Joint Decisions; Interpretation of BITs. 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  缩略语表（Abbreviations）  BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty 双边投资条约 FTA Free Trade Agreement 自由贸易协定 ICJ International Court of Justice 常设国际法院 ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 解决投资争端国际中心 IIA International Investment Agreement 国际投资协定 ILC International Law Commission 国际法委员会 ISDS Investor-State Dispute Settlement 投资者-国家争端解决 NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement 北美自由贸易协定 NAFTA FTC North American Free Trade Agreement Free Trade Commission 北美自由贸易协定自由贸易委员会 NGO Non-Governmental Organization 非政府组织 PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration 国际常设仲裁院 PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice 常设国际法院 UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  联合国贸易和发展会议 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 联合国国际贸易法委员会 VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 维也纳条约法公约 WIR World Investment Report 国际投资报告 WTO World Trade Organization 世界贸易组织 para./paras. paragraph/ paragraphs 段 v. versus 诉 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  案例表（Table of Cases） Short Title Full Case Title and Citation Abclat et al v. Argentina Abaclat et al v. The Argentine Republic (also known as Giovanna A. Beccara and others v. Argentine Republic), ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, August 4, 2011 and Dissenting Opinion, October 28, 2011. ADF Group v. U.S. ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1, January 9, 2003. Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia Aguas del Tunari S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3. Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, July 24, 2008. Canfor , Tembec and TFP v. United States of America Canfor Corp. v. United States of America, Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States of America and Tembec Inc., et al., v. United States of America, Consolidated NAFTA Arbitration, UNCITRAL Rules, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal, September 7, 2005. CMS v. Argentina CMS v. The Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, May 12, 2005. CME v. Czech CME Czech Republic B. V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, September 13, 2001. Consortium v. Morocco Consortium R. F. C. C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6. 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  CPI, Archer and Tate & Lyle  v.  Mexcio Corn Products International, Inc., v. United Mexican States and Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc., v. United Mexican States, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal, May 5, 2002. Czech v. CME The Czech Republic v. CME Czech Republic B. V., Case No. T-8735-01. 42, Courts of Appeal, Stockholm, Sweden, International Legal Materials 919, 2003. Duke Energy v. Ecuador Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, August 18, 2008. Ecuador v. U.S. Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-5, September 29, 2012. Enron v. Argentina Enron v. The Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, May 22, 2007. Enron v. Argentina, Annul Enron v. The Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Annulment Decision, July 30, 2010. Felman v. Mexcio Marvin Roy Feldman v. The United States of Mexcio, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/1, Award, December 16, 2002. Inceysa v. Argentina Inceysa Vallisoletana S. L. v. Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, August 2, 2006.  LG&E v. Argentina LG&E v. The Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, October 3, 2006. Loewen & Raymond v. U.S. The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/3, June 26, 2003. 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  Methanex v. U.S. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as Amicus Curiae, September 6, 2001; Final Award of the Tribunal, August 7, 2005. Merrill & Ring Forestry v. Canada Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Administrated, Award, March 31, 2010.  Mondev. v. U.S. Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/2, Award, October 11, 2002. Philip Morris & Abal Hermanos v.  Uruguay Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7. Philip Morris (HK) v. Australia Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12. Pope & Talbot v. Canada Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration Tribunal, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, April 1, 2001, Award, November 26, 2002, Damages, May 31, 2002. Romak v. Uzbeksitan Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbeksitan, PCA Case No. AA280. Award, November 26, 2009. Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, September 3, 2001. Ros Investo v. Russia Ros Investo Co. UK Ltd v. The Russia Federation, Case No: Arbitration V079/2005, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Award on Jurisdiction, October 2007. 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  Salini v. Jordan Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Jordan, ICSID ARB/02/13, Jurisdiction, November 9, 2004. Salini v. Morocco Salini Costruttori S. P. A. & Italstrade S. P. A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4. Santa Elena v. Costa Rica Santa Elena v. The Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, Award, February 17, 2000. Sempra v. Argentina Sempra v. The Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Annulment Decision, June 29, 2010.   SGS v. Philippines SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, January 29, 2004. Saluka v. Czech Saluka Investments B.V. v. Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, March 17, 2006. Tokios Tolelés v. Ukraine Tokios Tolelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, April 29, 2004 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  1 目  录  引言 ························· 1 第一章 国际投资仲裁的“正当性危机” ········· 3 第一节 “正当性危机”的主要表现 ·············· 3 一、 BITs 与投资仲裁 ······································· 3 二、 投资者与东道国权益保护的失衡 ························· 5 三、 投资仲裁裁决的不一致 ································· 7 第二节 克服正当性危机的主要努力或设想 ··········· 9 一、 合并审理制度 ········································ 10 二、 建立仲裁上诉机制 ···································· 11 三、 增加透明度与公众参与 ································ 13 四、 国际投资条约实体规则的丰富 ·························· 15 第二章 美国《2012 年 BIT 范本》第 30 条第 3 款与缔约国和仲裁庭解释权的关系 ···················· 17 第一节 美国投资政策转向与《2012 年 BIT 范本》的起草 ····· 17 第二节 美国《2012 年 BIT 范本》第 30 条第 3 款述评 ······ 20 一、 《2012 年 BIT 范本》第 30 条第 3 款的“是”与“臧” ····· 21 二、 《2012 年 BIT 范本》第 30 条第 3 款的“非”与“否” ····· 24 第三节 缔约国与仲裁庭的解释权的关系 ············ 27 一、 缔约国联合解释与仲裁庭解释权的“相生” ·············· 28 二、 缔约国联合解释与仲裁庭解释权的“相克” ·············· 29 三、 缔约国联合解释与仲裁庭解释“相生”与“相克”的关系 ·· 32 第三章 缔约国联合解释的恰当路径 ··········· 35 第一节 避免联合解释的两个误区 ··············· 35 一、 注意区分缔约国联合解释与条约修订 ···················· 35 二、 注意区分引导条约解释与纠正裁决错误 ·················· 36 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  第二节 严守条约解释规则是缔约国联合解释的恰当路径 ····· 37 结语 ························· 40 参考文献 ······················· 41 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  3 CONTENTS  Introduction  ........................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 Legitimacy Crisis of International Investment Arbitration ............................................................................................ 3 Subchapter 1 A Glance at the Legitimacy Crisis........................................... 3 Section 1  BITs and Investment Arbitration .............................................. 3 Section 2  Imbalanced protection of Investor and Host State ................... 5 Section 3  Inconsistency of Investment Arbitration Awards ..................... 7 Subchapter 2 Reforms to Overcome the Legitimacy Crisis ......................... 9 Section 1 Consolidation of Proceedings ................................................... 10 Section 2 Appeal Mechanism ................................................................... 11 Section 3 Enhancement of Transparency and Public Participation .......... 13 Section 4 Enrichment of Substantial Provisions ....................................... 15 Chapter 2  Article 30.3 of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT & the Relationship of Contracting Party and Tribunal Interpretive Authorities................................................. 17 Subchapter 1 US Investment Policy Change and the draft of 2012 U.S. Model BIT ....................................................................................................... 17 Subchapter 2 A Study of Article 30.3 of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT  .......... 20 Section 1 The Merits of Article 30.3 of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT .......... 21 Section 2 The Drawbacks of Article 30.3 of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT  . 24 Subchapter 3 The Relationship of Contracting Partis' and Tribunal's Interpretive Authorities ................................................................................. 27 Section 1 The Shared Interpretitve Authority between Contracting Parties and Tribunal .............................................................................................. 28 Section 2 The Conflicting of Contracting Partis’ and Tribunal’s 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库  Interpretive Authorities ............................................................................. 29 Section 3 The Relationship of Contracting Partis' and Tribunal's Interpretive Authorities ............................................................................. 32 Chapter 3 The Possible Roadmap of Joint Interpretation ............. 35 Subchapter 1 Two Importance Distinctions to Make ................................. 35 Section 1 Distinguish Interpretation from Amendment ............................ 35 Section 2 Distinguish Promotion of Consistency from Correction of Improper Awards ....................................................................................... 36 Subchapter 2 Stick to the Proper Roadmap of Joint Interpretation Decision ........................................................................................................... 37 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 40 Bibliography ....................................................................................... 41  厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库Degree papers are in the “Xiamen University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Database”. Fulltexts are available in the following ways: 1. If your library is a CALIS member libraries, please log on http://etd.calis.edu.cn/ and submitrequests online, or consult the interlibrary loan department in your library. 2. For users of non-CALIS member libraries, please mail to etd@xmu.edu.cn for delivery details.厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库

Joint Decisions by Contracting Parties of Investment Treaties and the Proper Control of Treaty Interpretations by Tribunals: A Study of Article 30(3) of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT

http://dspace.xmu.edu.cn/bitstream/handle/2288/75549/%e6%8a%95%e8%b5%84%e6%9d%a1%e7%ba%a6%e7%bc%94%e7%ba%a6%e5%9b%bd%e8%81%94%e5%90%88%e8%a7%a3%e9%87%8a%e4%b8%8e%e4%bb%b2%e8%a3%81%e5%ba%ad%e6%9d%a1%e7%ba%a6%e8%a7%a3%e9%87%8a%e4%b9%8b%e5%90%88%e7%90%86%e6%8e%a7%e5%88%b6%e2%80%94%e2%80%94%e5%85%bc%e8%af%84%e7%be%8e%e5%9b%bd%e3%80%8a2012%e5%b9%b4BIT%e8%8c%83%e6%9c%ac%e3%80%8b%e7%ac%ac30%e6%9d%a1%e7%ac%ac3%e6%ac%be.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Joint Decisions by Contracting Parties of Investment Treaties and the Proper Control of Treaty Interpretations by Tribunals: A Study of Article 30(3) of the 2012 U.S. Model BIT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Xiamen University Institutional Repository