نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

یکی از دلایل اصلی انتخاب سازوکار داوری توسط طرفین اختلافات بین‌المللی سرمایه‌گذاری، «اصل قطعیت» در آرای داوری است؛ بدین‌معنا که به‌طور کلی نمی‌توان در مورد آرای داوری بین‌المللی در ماهیت تجدیدنظر کرد. اما در این میان اصل قطعیت آرا موجب شده است که دیوان‌های مختلف داوری در حوزۀ سرمایه‌گذاری تصمیمات متناقض و بعضاً اشتباهی را اتخاذ کنند که البته امکان اصلاح آن آرا و تصمیمات (قطعی و الزام‌آور) به لحاظ ماهوی وجود ندارد. صدور چنین احکامی از سوی دیوان‌های مذکور سبب ایجاد بحران عدم انسجام و یکپارچگی در آرای داوری بین‌المللی سرمایه‌گذاری شده است. به‌منظور رفع این بحران، مفسران و صاحب‌نظران اصلاحات گوناگونی را در خصوص نظام داوری‌ بین‌المللی سرمایه‌گذاری پیشنهاد داده‌اند که یکی از برجسته‌ترین آنها ایجاد سازوکار تجدیدنظر است. این تحقیق در پی بررسی ـ نظری و عملی ـ مبانی ایجاد سازوکار تجدیدنظر در آرای داوری بین‌المللی سرمایه‌گذاری، معایب و مزایای آن و آثار احتمالی‌اش بر اصل «قطعیت» است. در نهایت نتیجه می‌گیرد که می‌توان از سازوکارهای بین‌المللی یا منطقه‌ای موجود برای حل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری به‌منظور ایجاد اصلاحات در آینده در زمینۀ نظام داوری‌ بین‌المللی سرمایه‌گذاری بهره گرفت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Study of Appeal facility in international investment arbitration

نویسندگان [English]

  • Bahareh Ahmadpour 1
  • Hamid Alhooii Nazari 2
  • Mohammadreza Shakib 1

1 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

One of the main reasons for choosing the mechanism of arbitration by the parties to the international investment disputes is the "principle of finality" in the arbitration awards; that is, generally they can not be appealed in merits. But at the same time, the principle of finality has led to different arbitration investment tribunals issued contradictory and sometimes mistaken decisions (final and binding), which, of course, can not correct them in merits. Issuing of such decisions by the tribunals has caused a crisis of incoherence and inconsistence in the international arbitration awards. In order to resolve this crisis, commentators and scholars have proposed various reforms to the international arbitration system that one of the most prominent of which is the creation of a appeal mechanism. This research seeks to
analyse the basis of the call for, as well as the potential advantages and disadvantages of an appellate mechanism and its possible effects on the principle of "finality." Finally, it concludes that existing international or regional mechanisms could be used to resolve investment disputes in order to make future reforms to the international investment arbitration system.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International investment arbitration
  • Appeal in Arbitration Awards
  • ICSID
  • principle of finality
  • principle of Correctness and Justice

1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. شکیب، محمدرضا (1397). دفاع ضرورت در رویۀ داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی: چالش‌های پیش رو، چ اول، تهران: خرسندی.

 

ب) قوانین

2. قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی (1379).

3. قانون داوری تجاری بین‌المللی (1376).

 

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

4. Schreuer, Christoph et al., (2009). The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Lauterpacht, Elihu (1991). Aspects of the administration of international justice, Cambridge: Grotius Publications.

6. Dolzer, Rudolf and Christoph Schreuer, (2008). Principles of International Investment Law, Oxford: OUP.

7. Subedi, Surya (2008). International Investment Law: Reconciling Policy and Principle, Oxford: Hart Publishing.

 

B) Articles

8. Qureshi, Asif Hasan (2008). “An appellate system in international investment arbitration” in Peter Muchlinski et al (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, Oxford , OUP.

9. Goldhaber, Michael, (2004). “Wanted: a world investment court”, Transnational Dispute Management(TMD), Vol 1, No 3.

10. Legum, Barton (2008). “Options to establish an appellate mechanism for investment disputes” in Karl P. Sauvant (ed), Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes, Oxford, OUP.

11. Tams, Christian (2017). “An appealing option? The debate about an ICSID appellate structure”, in Christian Tietje et al (eds), Essays in Transnational Economic Law, available at: http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/Heft57.pdf.

12. Bishop, Doak (2006). “The case for an appellate panel and its scope for review” in Federico Ortino et al (eds), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues, Vol. 1, British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

13. Do-hyun, Kim (2011). “The annulment committee’s role in multiplying inconsistency in ICSID arbitration: the need to move away from an annulment based system”, NYU Law Review, Vol. 86.

14. Penusliski, Ilija (2010). “A dispute systems design diagnosis of ICSID” in Michael Waibel et al (eds), The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: perceptions and Reality, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer.

15. Clapham, John, (2009), “Finality of investor-state arbitral awards: has the tide turned and is there need for reform?”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26.

16. Gill, Judith, (2006). “Inconsistent decisions: an issue to be addressed or a fact of life?” in Federico Ortino et al (eds), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues, Vol. 1, British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

17. Paulsson, Jan (2008). “Avoiding unintended consequences” in Karl P. Sauvant (ed), Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes, Oxford, OUP.

18. Yannaca-Small, Katia, (2010). “Annulment of ICSID awards: limited scope but is there potential?” in Katia Yannaca-Small (ed), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements, Cambridge, CUP.

19. Platt, Rowan, (2013). “The Appeal of Appeal Mechanisms in International Arbitration: Fairness over Finality?”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 30.

20. Franck, Susan, (2005). “The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 73.

21. Myron Schwebel, Stephen, (1994). “The creation and operation of an international court of arbitral awards”, taken from M. Hunter et al (eds), The Internationalisation of International Arbitration, Graham & Trotman.

22. Vladimir Balas, (2008). “Review of awards” in P Muchlinski et al (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, Oxford, OUP.

23. Reisman, William Michael (1989). “The Breakdown of the Control Mechanism in ICSID Arbitration”, Duke Law Journal, 739.

24. Caron, David (1992). “Reputation and Reality in the ICSID Annulment Process: Understanding the Distinction between Annulment and Appeal”, ICSID Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol.7, Issue 1.

 

C) Cases

25. Amco Asia Corp v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco Asia) ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1 Decision on annulment (16 May 1986), 1 ICSID Rep 509 (1993).

26. CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, Ad hoc – UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Partial Award of 13 September 2001 and IIC 62 (2003), Final Award of 14 March 2003.

27. CMS v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on annulment (25 September 2007).

28. Emilio Augustín Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7 (2000).

29. Enron and Ponderosa v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No. ARB01/3, Decision on annulment (30 July 2010).

30. Klöckner Industrie-Analagen v. Republic of Cameroon (Klöckner I) ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on annulment (3 May 1985), 2 ICSID Rep 95 (1994).

31. Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final Award, 3 September 2001 (Ad hoc- UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules).

32. Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States (2000), ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1 (2000).

33. MHS v. Malaysia ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on annulment (16 April 2009).

34. Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on annulment (1 November 2006).

35. Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Government of Canada (2002) ILR 293.

36. S.D. Myers v. Canada (2000) ILM 1408 (NAFTA Arb)

37. Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No. ARB02/16, Decision on annulment (29 June 2010).

38. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13 (2003) 42 ILM 1290.

39. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6 (2004).

 

D) Documents

40. "Possible improvements to the framework for ICSID arbitration", (22 October 2004) available at:

http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/highlights/improve-arb.htm;

41. "Investment Arbitration Reporter: ICSID to prepare background paper on annulment process", following request by Philippines, available at:

http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20111005_1.

42. "UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development", (2010) available at:

http://www.unctad.org/templates/webflyer.asp?docid=13762&intItemID=2340&lang=1&mode=downloads.

43. "Suggested changes to the ICSID rules and regulations" (12 May 2005), available at:

http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=NewsReleases&pageName=Archive_%20Announcement22.

44. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (signed 18 March 1965)

45. Article 829 of the Italian Civil Code, 1942.

46. S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/69

47. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006 amended version)

48. US Federal Arbitration Act 1925 available at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode09/usc_sup_01_9.html.

49. US Model BIT 2012

50. "Suggested changes to the ICSID rules and regulations", available at:

http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=NewsReleases&pageName=Archive_%20Announcement22.

51. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) 1958

52. US Model BIT 2004