دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموختة دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران

2 قاضی دیوان دعاویی ایران - ایالات متحده، دانشیار دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران، استاد ممتاز میهمان دانشگاه تیلبورگ، هلند

چکیده

اختیار دولت‌ها در تغییر قوانین و مقررات، به‌نحوی ‌که به حقوق سرمایه‌گذار خارجی آسیب وارد نکند، همواره از مسائل چالش‌برانگیز حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری بوده است. از یک طرف، سرمایه‌گذار خارجی انتظار دارد که در طول سرمایه‌گذاری‌اش قوانین و مقررات دولت میزبان تغییر نکند، از طرف دیگر، لازمۀ اداره کردن مطلوب جامعه تغییر قوانین و مقررات بنابر اوضاع و احوال و مقتضیات حاکم بر جامعه است. تقابل میان این دو، تابع عوامل مختلفی است. ازاین‌رو این پرسش مطرح می‌شود که انتظار مشروع سرمایه‌گذار در ثبات قوانین و مقررات دولت‌ها در زمان سرمایه‌گذاری چه نقشی ایفا می‌کند. با روش تحلیلی و توصیفی تلاش می‌شود که از طریق مرور معاهدات و آرای صادره در دیوان‌های داوری سرمایه‌گذاری نشان داده شود که انتظار مشروع سرمایه‌گذار می‌تواند در اختیار قانون‌گذاری دولت میزبان تأثیر مستقیمی داشته باشد و سرمایه‌گذار را از حقوقی بهره‌مند کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Interplay between the Legislative Power of States with Foreign Investors Legitimate Expectations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Arash Behzadi Parsi 1
  • Seyed Jamal Seifi 2

1 Ph.D in public international law, Department of public & international law, faculty of divinity, political science and law, Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Member of Iran- United States Claims Tribunal, Associate Professor National University, Tehran, Iran, Academic tenure holding visiting chair at Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

چکیده [English]

The power of States to alter their laws and regulations in a way that no harm is inflicted on foreign investor's rights, has always been one of the challenging issues under international investment law. One the one hand, the foreign investor expects that the laws and regulations of the host State remain unchanged in the course of his investment, but on the other, the efficient administration of society requires the amendment of laws and regulations based on the society's ruling circumstances. The interplay between the two above-mentioned trends, is subordinate to various factors. Hence, this article deals with the question that what role, the legitimate expectations of an investor, play with regard to the consistency of the laws and regulations of States. Applying analytical and descriptive method and by examining treaties and the awards rendered by investment arbitral tribunals, attempt is made to demonstrate that the legitimate expectations of investor may have a direct impact upon the host State's legislation discretion and entitles the investor to certain rights.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Power of Legislation
  • Investors Rights
  • Fair & Equitable Treatment
  • Stabilization Clause
  • legitimate expectations
1. فارسی
الف) مقاله
1. سیفی، سید جمال (1393)، تفسیر معاهده در زمان و قاعدۀ حقوق میان‌دوره‌ای جامعة بین‌المللی و حقوق بین‌الملل در قرن 21، تهران: شهر دانش.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Dolzer, Rudolf & Schreuer, Christoph (2012), Principle of International Investment Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2. Campbell McLachlan, Laurence Shore, Matthew Weiniger, (2017), International Investment Arbitration, Substantive Principles, 2th Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
3. Newcombe. A., paradell, L., (2009), Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment,, Den Rijen, Kluwer Law International
4. Shaw, Malcolm (2008), International Law, 6th. Ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
5. Vandevelde, Kenneth J., (2010), Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy and International, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 
B) Articles
6. Barrett, Gadvin (2001), “Protecting Legitimate Expectations in European Community Law and Domestic Irish Law”, Yearbook of European Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp. 191-243.
7. Seifi, S Jamal, (2014), Interpretation of Treaty in the Course of time & Inter-temporal Law Principle, Tehran, International Community & International Law in the 21st Century, The SD Institute of Law Research & Study, The House of Humanities Thinkers,131-141 (In Persian).
 8. Vandevelde, A., (2005), “Brief History of International Investment Agreements”, Davis Journal of International and Law Policy, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 157-196.
 
C) Cases
9. Amoco International Finance Corporations v. The Government of Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Partial Award No. 310-56-3, 14 July 1987, Reprinted in 15 Iran-US CTR.
10. Azurix Corp v. the Argentine Republic, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/12, Annulment Award of July 14 2006.
11. Bayandir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, Award of 2009.
12. Bayview Irrigation District v. Mexico, ICSID, Case No. ARB (AF)/05/1 Award of 2007.
13. BG Group Plc v Republic of Argentina, Award UNCITRAL Tribunal 24 December 2007.
14. Burlington Resources, Inc v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2010.
15. Chemtura Corporation v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (Formerly Crompton Corporation v. Government of Canada), Award of 2010.
16. CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of May 12 2005.
17. Compania Del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A v Republic of costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/96/1, Award of February 17 2000.
18. Consortium RFCC v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/6, Award of 2003.
19. Duke Energy Electroquil Partner and Electroquil SA v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/04/19, Award of 2008.
20. EDF v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award of 8 October 2009.
21. Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (Formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award of 22 May 2007.
22. Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction 1998.
23. Eureko BV Republic of Poland, Ad Hoc Tribunal,
24. Partial Award of 19 Aug 2005.
25. Generation Ukraine, Inc v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9, Award of 2009.
26. Glamis Gold Ltd v. United States, UNCITRAL, Award of June 8 2009.
27. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd v. United States, UNCITRAL, Award of 2011.
28. Impregilo SpA v Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17, Award of 2011.
29. International Thunderbird v United Mexican States NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award of 26 January 2006, Separate Opinion of Thomas Walde.
30. LG &E Capital Crop and LG&E International Inc v Argentine Republic, Case No. ARB/02/1 Decision on Liability 2006.
31. LG &E Capital Crop and LG&E International Inc v Argentine Republic, Case No. ARB/02/1 Award of 2007.
32. Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/3, Award of 2003.
33. El Paso Energy International Company v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award of 31 October 2011.
34. Marion Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/1 Award of 2012
35. Methanex v United States of America, (NAFTA/UNCITRAL) Final Award of August 3 2005.
36. Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador, Final Award of 1 July 2004.
37. Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/08, Award of September 11 2007.
38. Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award of 2001.
39. Saluka v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17th Mar, 2006.
40. Suez and Vivendi v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability of 30 July 2010.
41. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v United States, ICSID, Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award of May 29 2003.
42. Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12. Award of 2012.
43. Waste Management v United States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/3, Award of April 2004.
44. Vattenfall v. Germanty, ICSID, Case NO.ARB/09/6 Award of 2010.
45. White Industries Australia Limited v The Republic of India, UNCITRAL, Final Award of 2011.