دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار بازنشسته دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دورة دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه با اینکه اخیراً به بخش جدایی‌ناپذیر اغلب معاهدات بین‌المللی سرمایه‌گذاری و متعاقب آن، داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بدل شده است، اما تعریف، محتوا و قلمرو آن محل بحث است. مراجع داوری به‌منظور احراز نقض شرط مزبور اغلب بر عواملی چون عدم تبعیض، تناسب، موجه‌ بودن، فرایند منصفانه و ثبات نظم حقوقی تکیه کرده‌اند، اما پرداختن به عناصری چون شفافیت مورد انتقاد است. بنابراین، سؤال اصلی این است که شفافیت چه نقش و تأثیری بر تفسیر شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه دارد. مطالعات نشان می‌دهد که شفافیت توسط مراجع داوری اغلب به‌عنوان یکی از عناصر شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه تعریف شده و نقشی کلیدی در تفسیر شرط مزبور داشته است. مسائل مرتبط با شفافیت از نخستین مواردی است که در مراجع داوری در خصوص شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه مدنظر قرار می‌گیرد و به‌زعم حقوقدانان و دیوان‌های داوری از مهم‌ترین عناصر متشکلة شرط مزبور است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Transparency in Interpretation of the FET Standard in International Investment Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Shamsaei 1
  • Seyed Ali Hosseiniazad 2

1 Former Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard has recently become an indispensable element for international investment treaties and consequently in investment arbitrations, but its definition, content and scope have been the subject of controversy. Some factors have relied upon by tribunals to find a violation of the FET, such as Non-discrimination, proportionality, reasonableness, due process and stability of regulatory framework. But a number of possible elements, such as transparency have generated concern and criticism. Thus, the main question is the role and effect of transparency in interpretation of the FET. The survey shows that transparency has been often considered as an element of the FET by tribunals and it has a significant role in interpretation of the FET. Transparency issues were among the first to be considered by tribunals concerning the FET standard and it is an important element that authors and tribunals understand as forming part of the FET standard.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Investment Law
  • International Arbitration
  • Fair and equitable treatment
  • transparency
1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. عسکری، پوریا (1394)، حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در رویۀ داوری بین‌المللی، تهران: شهر دانش.
2. لوونفلد، آندریاس (1390)، حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، ترجمۀ محمدجعفر قنبری جهرمی، تهران: جنگل.
 
ب) مقالات
3. انصاری مهیاری، علیرضا؛ رئیسی، لیلا (1397)، «استانداردهای بین‌المللی حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی»، دوفصلنامۀ دانشنامۀ حقوق اقتصادی، سال بیست‌وپنجم، ش 13، ص 88 ـ 47.
4. پاسبان، محمدرضا؛ اصغری، زینب (1393)، «نقش رفتار منصفانه در حل‌و‌فصل اختلافات ناشی از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی با تأکید بر مفهوم مسئولیت اجتماعی شرکت‌های فراملی»، فصلنامۀپژوهشحقوقخصوصی، سال سوم، ش 8، ص 70 ـ 43.
5. ضیایی، سید یاسر؛ جوادی، سعیده (1398)، «حمایت از مالکیت فکری در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی»، فصلنامه‌ی مطالعات حقوقی، دورۀ 11، ش 2، ص 155 ـ 127.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Askari, Pouria (2015), the Law of Foreign Investment in International Arbitration Practice, Tehran, the SD Institute of Law Research and Study )in Persian).
2. Buijze, Anoeska (2013), The principle of transparency in EU law, s-Hertogenbosch, Uitgeverij BOXPress.
3. Dolzer, Rudolph & Christoph Schreuer (2008),Principles of International Investment Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
4. Islam, Rumana (2018), The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Arbitration; Developing Countries in Context, Singapore, Springer.
5. Lowenfeld, Andreas F. (2011), International Investment Law, translated by: Mohamadjafar Ghanbari Jahromi, Tehran, Jangal Publication (In Persian).
6. Salacuse, Jeswald W. (2015), The Law of Investment Treaties, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
7. Tudor, Ioana (2008), The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Foreign Investment Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
8. Yen, Trinh Hai (2014), The Interpretation of Investment Treaties, Leiden, Brill/Nijhoff Publisher.
 
B) Articles
9. Ansari Mahyari, Alireza & Raisi, Leila (2018), “International Standards of Foreign Investment Protection”, Journal Encyclopedia of Economic Law, No. 13, pp. 47-88 )In Persian).
10. Pasban, Mohammad Reza & Asghari, Zeinab (2015), “The Role of Fair and Equitable Treatment in the Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes: With Particular Emphasis on Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations”, Private Law Research, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 43-70 )In Persian).
Ziaee, S. Yaser & Javadi, Saeedeh (2019), “Protection of Intellectual Property in International Foreign Investment Law”, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 127-155 )In Persian).
1. Bronfman, Marcela K. (2006), “Fair and Equitable Treatment: An Evolving Standard”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 10, pp. 609-680
12. Dolzer, Rudolf (2005), “Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties”, the International Lawyer, Vol. 39, Issue 1, pp. 87-106.
13. Finke, Jasper (2014), “Concepts, Hybridization, Principles, and the Rule of Law: New Literature on International Monetary and Financial Law”, 12 Int'l J. Const. L., Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 1054-1070
14. Iqbal, Tabassum (2017), “Free and equitable treatment principle: The mischievous principle of international investment law”, International Journal of Applied Research, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 713-725
15. Jacob, Marc and Stephan W. Schill (2017), “Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method”, ACIL Research Paper, Vol. 20, pp. 1-63
16. Klager, Roland (2010), “Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Look at the Theoretical Underpinnings of Legitimacy and Fairness”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 435-455
17. Laverde, Santiago D. (2011), “Analysis of the Principle of Transparency with Special Reference to Its Implications for the Procedure of International Investment Arbitration”, Criterio Jurídico Santiago de Cali, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 105-134.
18. Marshall, Fiona (2007),. “Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements”, Issues in International Investment Law Background Papers for the Developing Country Investment Negotiators’Forum. International Institute for Sustainable Development, pp. 2-17.
19. Schill, Stephan W. (2010), “Fair and Equitable Treatment, The Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law”, in: Stephan W. Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 151-182.
20. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. (2010), “a Unified Theory of Fair and Equitable Treatment”, International Law and Politics, Vol. 43, pp. 43-106
21. Zöllner, Carl-Sebastian (2006), “Transparency: An Analysis of an Evolving Fundamental Principle in International Economic Law”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 579-628.
 
C) International Official Reports
22. OECD, (2004), “Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, OECD Publishing.
23. UNCTAD, (1999), “Admission and Establishment”, UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements, New York and Geneva, United Nations publication.
24. UNCTAD, (2012), “Fair and equitable treatment”, UNCTAD Series, Vol. II, New York and Geneva, United Nations Publications.
25. UNCTAD, (1999), “Fair and equitable treatment”, UNCTAD Series, Vol. III, New York and Geneva, United Nations Publications.
 
D) Arbitral Decisions
26. Champion Trading Co. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9, Award (Oct. 27, 2006).
27. Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3), award of 22 May 2007.
28. Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010
29. Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award (Nov. 13, 2000).
30. Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1), Award of August 30, 2000
31. Mondev International Ltd v United States of America, ICSID Arbitration no. ARB(AF)/99/2, p.40, 116, October 11, 2002)
32. MTD Equity Sdn Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. v. The Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7) (Annulment Proceeding), Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007.
33. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7), Award of May 25, 2004.
34. Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, London Court of International Arbitration Case No. UN3467, Final Award of 1 July 2004 Available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0571.pdf (last visited on: 09/01/2020)
35. Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award (11 September 2007)
36. PSEG Global, Inc. v. Republic of Turk., ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award (Jan. 19, 2007)
37. Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), Partial Award of 17 March 2006
38. Siemens A.G. v. Arg. Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award (Feb. 6, 2007).
39. Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2), Award of May 29, 2003
40. The United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2001, BCSC 664. Full text is available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0512.pdf
41. Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3), Final award of April 30, 2004
42. Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 28 April 2011.
 
E) ICJ Cases
43. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), ICJ Judgment of 20 July 1989.