دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

امروزه داوری بی‌تردید به روش غالب حل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی بدل شده و در غالب معاهدات دوجانبه یا چندجانبة سرمایه‌گذاری یا قراردادهای سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی با دولت میزبان، شرط داوری درج شده است. با وجود این، دیوان‌های داوری در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی، حتی در داوری‌های سازمانی (مانند ایکسید و...)، به‌صورت موردی و برای هر پرونده به‌طور خاص تشکیل می‌شوند و پس از فصل خصومت نیز منحل می‌شوند. این مسئله سبب شده است که در دهه‌های اخیر در چندین مورد آرایی از دیوان‌های داوری مختلف صادر شود که در پرونده‌های مشابه با مسائل حکمی و موضوعی تقریباً یکسان، داوران احکامی متعارض یا بعضاً متناقض صادر کرده‌اند. گسترش صدور آرای متعارض از سوی بسیاری از حقوقدانان به‌عنوان تهدیدی برای نظام حل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی قلمداد شده است؛ تهدیدی که امنیت و انسجام حقوقی این نظام را تضعیف می‌کند و اعتماد بازیگران این عرصه را از بین می‌برد. یکی از پیشنهادهای ارائه‌شده به‌منظور حل این معضل، ایجاد دادگاه فراملی سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی است که در این نوشتار به برخی از ابعاد این پیشنهاد پرداخته می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Legal Security in International Investment Dispute Settlement System

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Jafar Ghanbari Jahromi 1
  • Seyed Mohammadali Abdollahi 2

1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D in International Law, Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Today, Arbitration is, without any doubt, turned into the most common method of dispute settlement in international investment disputes and most BITs, MITs or contracts between investors and host states contain an arbitration clause. Nevertheless, arbitral tribunals in international investment disputes, even in institutional arbitrations (such as ICSID etc.), are ad hoc-based and establish for each specific case and will be dissolved after settling the respective dispute. In recent decades, this has led to the issuance of conflicting or even contradictory awards from different arbitral tribunals, in several instances, in which different judgments have been rendered for almost same legal or factual issues. The increase in issuance of such conflicting awards is considered, by some legal scholars, as a threat to legal security and consistency of the system, which also compromise trust of the players in this field. One proposal for resolving the problem is establishing a Multi-National Court of International Investment, which is the main subject of study in this article.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • legal security
  • legal consistency
  • International Arbitration
  • international investment
1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. انصاری معین، پرویز (۱۳۸۷)، حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، تهران: میزان.
2. بیکس، برایان (۱۳۸۹)، فرهنگ نظریة حقوقی، ترجمة محمد راسخ، تهران: نشر نی.
3. تروپه، میشل (۱۳۸۶)، فلسفة حقوق، ترجمة مرتضی کلانتریان مفید، تهران: آگه.
4. رودلف، دالزر؛ کریستف، شروئر (۱۳۹۳)، اصول حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، ترجمة سید قاسم زمانی، و به‌آذین حسیبی، چ دوم، تهران: شهر دانش.
5. شیروی، عبدالحسین (۱۳۹۰)، حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، چ سوم، تهران: سمت.
6. صفایی، سید حسین (۱۳۹۰)، حقوق بین‌الملل و داوری‌های بین‌المللی، چ سوم، تهران: میزان.
7. عسکری، پوریا (۱۳۹۴)، حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در رویة داوری بین‌المللی، چ سوم، تهران: شهر دانش.
8. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (۱۳۹۰)، صلح جاویدان و حکومت قانون: دیالکتیک همانندی و تفاوت، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو .
9. --------------- (۱۳۹۶)، سیر عقل در منظومة حقوق بین‌الملل: اصول اساسی روش‌شناسی حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
10. لوونفلد، آندریاس (۱۳۹۰)، حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، ترجمة محمدجعفر قنبری جهرمی، تهران: جنگل.
 
ب) مقالات
11. شهبازی، آرامش (۱۳۸۹)، «تکثر سیستم قضایی بین‌المللی»، پژوهش حقوق عمومی، ش ۲۹.
12. عطریان، فرامرز (۱۳۹۶)، «اصل امنیت حقوقی و مداخلة دولت در عرصة اقتصاد»، مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورة چهل‌وهفتم، ش ۲.
13. محمدزاده وادقانی، علیرضا (۱۳۷۶)، «رویة قضایی و نقش سازندة آن در حقوق»، مجلة دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، ش ۳۸.
14. ویژه، محمدرضا (۱۳۹۰)، «امنیت حقوقی به مثابة شرط تحقیق امنیت قضایی»، راهبرد، ش ۵۸.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Ansari Moin, Parviz (2008), International Commercial Law, Tehran, Mizan Publication (In Persian).
2. Bix, Brian (2010), A Dictionary of Legal Theory (translated by Mohammad Rasekh), Tehran, Ney Publication (In Persian).
3. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2015), Permanent Peace and Rule of Law, Tehran, Farhang Nashr No Publication (In Persian).
4. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2018), Circuit of Wisdom in International Law System: Fundamental Principles of International Law Methodology, Tehran, Farhang Nashr No Publication (In Persian).
5. Kinnear, Meg, Diop, Aïssatou, ‘Use of the Media by Counsel in Investor-State Arbitration’, in A. J. van den Berg, Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times (Kluwer Law International B.V., 2011).
6. Lowenfeld, Andreas (2012), International Economic Law (translated by Mohammad Jafar Ghanbari Jahromi), Tehran, Jungle Publication (In Persian).
7. Muchlinski, Peter T, Ortino, Federico & Schreuer, Christoph (2008), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, London, Oxford University Press.
8. Muchlinski, Peter T., Ortino, Federico, Schreuer, Christoph, (2008), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, London, Oxford University Press.
9. Pouria, Askari (2016), International Investment Law in Arbitral Jurisprudence, 3rd edn, Tehran, Shahre Danesh Publication (In Persian).
10. Reinisch, August, Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Wittich, Stephan, (2009), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, London, Oxford University Press.
11. Safei, S. Hossein (2012), International law and international arbitrations, 3rd edn, Tehran, Mizan Publication (In Persian).
12. Schreuer, Christoph (2013), ‘Coherence and Consistency in International Investment Law’, in Echandi, Roberto et al. (ed), Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy: World Trade Forum (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
13. Schreuer, Christoph and Dolzer, Rudolf (2015), Principles of International Investment Law, (translated by Qasem Zamani and Behazin Hasibi), 2nd edn, Tehran, Share Danesh Publication (In Persian).
14. Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Coherence and Consistency in International Investment Law’, in Echandi, Roberto et. al. (ed), Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy: World Trade Forum (Cambridge University Press, 2013) (In Persian).
15. Shiravi, Abdolhossein (2012), International Commercial Law, 3rd edn, Tehran, Samt Publication (In Persian).
16. Sornarajah, M., (2010), The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press.
17. Sornarajah, M., (2010), The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press (In Persian).
18. Troper, Michel (2007), La Philosophie du Droit (translated by Morteza Kalantarian), Tehran, Agah Publication (In Persian).
 
B) Articles
19. Anders, Englesson, Oscar, (2013), “Inconsistent Awards in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Is an Appeals Court Needed”, 30 Journal of International Arbitration 561.
20. Brower, Charles N., Sharpe, Jeremy K., (2003), “Multiple and Conflicting International Arbitral Awards”, 4 Journal of World Investment.
21. Brown, Colin M., ‘A Multilateral Mechanism for the Settlement of Investment Disputes: Some Preliminary Sketches’ (2017), 32 ICSID Review 3, 673.
22. Dimitropoulos, Georgios, ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform and Theory of Institutional Design’ (2018), 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 535.
23. Gáspár-Szilágy, Szilárd, (2016), “A Standing Investment Court under TTIP from the Perspective of the Court of Justice of the European Union” , 17 Journal of World Investment & Trade 701.
24. Grenness, Esther-Jane, (2018), “Let’s Have a Souffle Instead: Selective Reform of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Regime”, 6 University of Baltimore Journal of International Law 1.
25. Howard, David M., (2017),”Creating Consistency through a World Investment Court”, 41 Fordham International Law Journal 1
26. Jansen, Calamita, N., (2017),”‘The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime” ,18 Journal of World Investment & Trade 585.
27. Jennings, Mark, (2016), ‘The International Investment Regime and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: States Bear the Primary Responsibility for Legitimacy’ ,, 17 Business Law International 127.
28. McLaughlin, Mark, (2018), “Global Reform of Investor-State Arbitration: ATentative Roadmap of China’s Emergent Equilibrium” , 6 The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 1, 73.
29. Roberts, Anthea, (2018),”Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration” ,, 112 The American Journal of International Law 3, 410.
30. Salacuse, Jeswald W., The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford, 2015)
31. Schill, Stephan W., ‘W(h)ither Fragmentation? On the Literature and Sociology of International Investment Law’ (2011), 22 The European Journal of International Law 3, 875.
32. Spoorenberg, Frank, Vinuales, Jorge E., (2009), “Conflicting Decisions in International Arbitration”, 8 Law & Prac. Int'l Cts. & Tribunals.
33. Tams, Christian J., (2006), “An Appealing Option? The Debate About an ICSID Appellate Structure”, 57 Transnational Economic Law Working Paper
34. Tattevin, Guillaume & Richard, Juliette, (2013), “International Court of Justice Case Law in ICSID Awards”, 31 ASA BULLETIN
35. Ten Cate, Irene (2013), “The Costs of Consistency: Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration” , 51 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 418
36. Titi, Catharine, ‘The European Union’s Proposal for an International Investment Court: Significance, Innovations and Challenges Ahead’ (2017), Transnational Dispute Management 1.
37. Zarra, Giovanni, (2018), “The Issue of Incoherence in Investment Arbitration: Is There Need for a Systemic Reform?” , 17 Chinese Journal of International Law 137.
38. Zhang, Zhiyong, (2016), “How to Reform Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: EU’s Practice and Implications” , 6 Journal of WTO & China 27.
39. Ramazanighavamabadi, Mohammad, Shahbazi, Aramesh, Embracing international judicial system, Public law research Vol. 12, Issue 29,pp. 116-160 (In Persian).
40. Atriyan, Faramarz, The Principle of Legal Certainty and Government Interventions in the Economy, Public law studies Quarterly, Vol. 47, Issue 2,pp. 281-301 (In Persian).
41. Mohammadzadeh Vadghani, Alireza, Judicial procedure and its constructive role in law, Journal of law and political sience, Vol. 38 (In Persian).
42. Vijeh, MohammadReza, Legal security as a condition for judicial security, journal of Rahbord, Vol. 20, Issue 58,pp. 95-130 (In Persian).
 
C) Documents
43. A Multilateral Investment Court: A New System for Resolving Disputes between Foreign Investors and States in a Fair and Efficient Way (Europpean Commission Factsheet, 2017)
44. Consistency, Efficiency and Transparency in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Report by the IBA Arbitration Subcommittee on Investment Treaty Arbitration (International Bar Association, November 2018)
45. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958
46. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Washington, 1965
47. Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, Potestà, Michele, Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-State arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism?: Analysis and roadmap (Geneva Centre for International Dispute Settlement (CIDS), 3 June 2016)
48. Possible Future Work in the Field of Dispute Settlement: Reforms of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), Note by the Secretariat, UNCITRAL, Fiftieth session, Vienna, 3-21 July 2017, UN Doc. A/CN.9/917
49. Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration, ICSID Secretariat, Discussion Paper, October 22, 2004
50. Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS): Consistency and related matters, UNCITRAL (WG III), UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150, 28 August 2018
51. Recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP Recommendations”); Europpean Parliament, 2014/2228(INI), 8 July 2015
52. Report of UNCITRAL, UNGA, Official Records Seventy-first session Supplement No. 17, Forty-ninth session (27 June-15 July 2016), UN Doc. A/71/17
53. Report of UNCITRAL, UNGA, Official Records Seventy-Second session Supplement No. 17, Fiftieth session (3-21 July 2017), UN Doc. A/72/17
54. The ICSID Caseload Statistics (issue 2019-1)
55. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945
56. World Investment Report 2015: Reforming International Investment Governance, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
57. World Investment Report 2016: Investor Nationality: Policy Challenges, UNCTAD
58. World Investment Report 2017: Investment and the Digital Economy, UNCTAD
59. World Investment Report 2018: Investment and New Industrial Policies, UNCTAD
60. World Investment Report 2019: Special Economic Zones, UNCTAD
 
D)Judgements and Awards
61. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain); Second Phase, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 5 February 1970
62. CME Czech Republic B.V. vs. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, Final Award, March 14, 2003
63. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, April 20, 2005
64. ElettronicaSicula S.P.A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 20 July 1989
65. Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Jurisdiction, Judgment, Permanent Court of International Justice, PCIJ Series A No 9, ICGJ 247 (PCIJ 1927), 26 July 1927
66. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, October 3, 2006
67. Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, January 25, 2000
68. Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration Tribunal, Award, September 3, 2001
69. Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, November 29, 2004
70. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, August 6, 2003
71. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID, Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, January 29, 2004