دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانش‌آموخته دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

با آغاز دهة ۱۹۹۰ میلادی روند انعقاد معاهدات دوجانبة سرمایه‌گذاری به‌منظور توسعة سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی و حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی میان کشورها به‌شدت رو به افزایش نهاد که این معاهدات اغلب داوری را به‌عنوان روش حل‌وفصل اختلاف برگزیده‌اند. اما عبارات مندرج در این معاهدات همیشه از شفافیت کافی برخوردار نیستند. ازاین‌رو داوران برای رسیدگی به اختلاف ناچار دست به تفسیر عبارات مندرج در معاهده می‌زنند. «تناسب» از سوی برخی از دیوان‌های داوری سرمایه‌گذاری برای برقراری توازن میان منافع متعارض کشورهای سرمایه‌پذیر و سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی مورد استناد قرار گرفته است. برخی صاحب‌نظران مبنای استناد به معیار تناسب از سوی دیوان‌های داوری سرمایه‌گذاری را مورد تردید قرار داده‌اند. در این نوشتار ماهیت «تناسب» به‌عنوان یک اصل کلی حقوقی که در نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی ریشه دارد و به‌نحو مطلوبی به بخش‌های مختلف نظام حقوق بین‌الملل انتقال یافته است، احراز می‌شود و بر این اساس استناد به آن، به‌عنوان معیاری کاربردی، به‌منظور تفسیر معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری طبق قاعدة تفسیر مندرج در مادة ۳۱ کنوانسیون ۱۹۶۹ حقوق معاهدات توجیه می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Status of Proportionality as a General Principle of International Law In Settlement of Investor-State Disputes

نویسنده [English]

  • Amineh Farasatmand

Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

With the beginning of the 1990s concluding the Bilateral Investment Treaties with the purpose of development of foreign direct investment and protection of foreign investors increased dramatically. These treaties provided for arbitration as the dispute settlement method. But the provisions of treaties are not always clear enough. Therefore arbitrators, in order to settle the dispute, need to interpret the treaty provisions. “Proportionality” has been applied by some investment arbitral tribunals in order to make a balance between conflicting interests of host states and investors. Some scholars challenged the basis of application of proportionality by investment arbitral tribunals. In the present article characteristics of proportionality as a general principle of law which has its roots in domestic legal systems and has transferred desirably from domestic legal systems to different parts of international law will be examine. Accordingly, its application as a general principle of public international law in order for investment treaty interpretation- based on the interpretation rules reflected in the article 31 of the Vienna Convention 1969- will be justified.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Principle of Proportionality
  • general principles of law
  • Interpretation of Investment Treaties
  • International Investment Law
  • Investment Arbitration
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. شمس، عبدالله (۱۳۹۶)، آیین دادرسی مدنی دورة پیشرفته، چ چهلم، تهران: دراک.
  2. مرادی برلیان، مهدی (۱۳۹۲)، اصل تناسب در نظام حقوقی اتحادیة اروپایی با نگاهی به آرای دیوان عدالت اداری ایران، تهران: خرسندی.
  3. مرکز مطبوعات و انتشارات قوة قضاییه (۱۳۹۶)، مجموعه تنقیح‌شده قوانین و مقررات حقوقی کاربردی، ج 5، چ دوم، تهران.

 

ب) مقالات

  1. رجب، محمدعلی (۱۳۹۶)، «اصل تناسب تأمین و جایگاه آن در نظام دادرسی کیفری ایران»، مجلة حقوقی دادگستری، ش ۹۸.
  2. رستمی، ولی (۱۳۹۵)، «نقد و بررسی دیدگاه‌های کاربرد اصل تناسب در نظارت قضایی ایران»، فصلنامة تخصصی دین و قانون، ش ۱۲.
  3. زارعی، محمدحسین (۱۳۹۳)، «مفهوم و جایگاه اصل تناسب در حقوق اداری با نگاه ویژه به نظام حقوقی اتحادیة اروپایی»، مجلة تحقیقات حقوقی، ش ۶۶.
  4. سبزواری‌نژاد، حجت (۱۳۹۶)، «جایگاه اصل تناسب جرم و مجازات در حقوق کیفری ایران و انگلستان»، دوفصلنامة علمی-پژوهشی دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، ش ۷۷ و ۷۸.

 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books
  3. Bucheler, Gebhard (2015), Proportionality in Investor-state Arbitration, London, Oxford University Press.
  4. Brady, Alan D.P., (2012), Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights, London, Cambridge University Press.
  5. Burke -White, William; Staden, Andereas Von, (2010), “The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitration”, in International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, Edited by: Stephan W. Schill, London, Oxford University Press.
  6. Henckels, Caroline, (2015), Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration, London, Cambridge University Press.
  7. Kingsbury, Benedict & Schill, W. Stephan (2010), “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors' Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionality”, in S Schill (ed), International Investment Law and ComparativePublic Law, London, Oxford University Press.
  8. Knahr, Christina & Koller, Christian (2010), Investment and Commercial Arbitration- Similarities and Divergences, Eleven International Pubishing.
  9. Kotuby Jr, Charles T., Sobota, Luke A., (2017), General Principles of Law and International Due Process, Oxford University Press.
  10. Moradi berelyan, Mahdi (2013), The Principle of Proportionality in the European Union Legal Regime, with a special focus on the Judgments rendered by the Administrative. Court of Justice of Iran, Tehran (in persain).
  11. Reinisch, August (2010), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol.41.
  12. The Judiciary Centre for Press and Publications (2017), The Collection of Amended Practical Laws and Regulations, Vol. 5, Second edition, Tehran (in persain).
  13. Shaw QC, Malcolm N., (2006), International Law, Cambrdge University Press, Sixth Edition.
  14. Urbina, Francisco J., (2017), Critique of Proportionality and Balancing, Cambridge Uneversity Press.
  15. Vadi, Valentina (2018), Proportionality, Reasonableness and Standard of Review in International Investment Law and Arbitration, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  16. Shams, Abdollah (2017), Advanced Civil procedural Law, 40th edition, Tehran: Derak publication (in persain).

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Bruke-White, William W., and A. von, Staden (2010), “Private Litigation in Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State rbitration”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 35.
  3. Calamita, N.Jansen; (2013-2014),“The Principal of Proportionality and the Problem of Indeterminacy in International Investment Treaties”, in Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy.
  4. Carter, Anne, (2016) “Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law: Towards Transnationalism?”, ZaöRV, Vol.76, pp. 951-966.
  5. Cottier, Thomas and others, (2012), “The Principle of Proportionality in International Law”, nccr trade regulation, Swiss National Center of Competence Research, Working paper No. 2012/38. pp. 1-34.
  6. Fish, Morris J., (2008), “An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment”, Oxford Journal of Leal Studies,Vol. 28.
  7. Frank, Thomas M., (2008), “On Proportionality of Countermeasure in International Law”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 4, pp. 715-767.
  8. Gazzini, Tarcisio, “General Principles of Law in the Field of Foreign Investment” (2009), The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 10, No.1.
  9. Hilf, Meinhard, (2001), “Power, Rules and Principle- Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law?” Journal of International Economic Law, 111-130.
  10. Hirsch, Moshe, (2011), “Sorces of International Investment Law”, Interational Law Association Study Group in the Role of Soft Law Instruments in Investment Law, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1892564.
  11. Jackson, Viki. C, (2015), “Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 124, Issue 8.
  12. Kolb, Robert,(2006), “Principles as Sources Of International Law (With Special Reference To Good Faith), Netherlands International Law Review, LIII: 1-36.
  13. Mitchell, Andrew D., (2007), “Proportionality and Remedies in WTO Disputes”, European Journal on International Law, Vol. 17, No. 5.
  14. Ranjan, Prabhash (2014), “Using the public Law Concept of Proportionality to Balance Investment Protection with Regulation in International Investment Law: A Critical Appraisal”, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol.3, Issue 3.
  15. Rivers, Julian, “Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review” (2006) 65, Cambridge LJ 174-207.
  16. Rajab, Mohammad Ali (2017), “The Principle of Proportionality of Bails in Iranian Criminal Procedure”, 10.22106/JLJ.2017.26775, The Judiciary Law Journal, No. 98 (in persain).
  17. Rostami, Vali (2016), “Criticizing and Analyzing the View Points on the Application of the Principle of Proportionality in Judicial Monitoring in Iran”, Quarterly Journal Religion and Law, No. 12 (in persain).
  18. Sabzevarinejad, Hojat (2017), “The Status of the Principle of Proportionality of Crime and Punishment in the Criminal Law of Iran and United Kingdom”, Journal of the Viewpoints of Judicial Law, No. 77-78 (in persain).
  19. Schill, Stephan.W, (2011), “Enhancing International Investment Law’s Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach”, Virginia Jornal of International Law, Vol.52.
  20. Schlesinger, Rudolf, “Reasearch on the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations”, (1957), Vol.51, American Journal of International Law.
  21. Vadi, Valentina, (2015), “the migration of constitutional ideas to regional and international economic law: the case of proportionality”, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Busines, Vol.24.
  22. Zarei, Mohammad Hossein (2014), “The Concept and Status of the Principle of Proportionality in the Administrative Law with a Special Focus on the EU Legal System”, Legal Research Quarterly, No. 66 (in persain).

 

  1. C) Votes
  2. Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreeated Tyres’, AB-2007-4, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS332/AB/R, 3 December 2007.
  3. European Communities- Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS135/AB/R, 12 March 2001.
  4. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, Merits, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986.
  5. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, 2005.
  6. Coleman v Power, High Court of Australia, HCA 39, Judgment, 1 September 2004.
  7. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Judgement, Case No.16, 2012.
  8. Handyside v. The United Kingdom, ECHR, 7 December 1976.
  9. Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom – 22954/93, ECHR, 2 September 1998.
  10. Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department, UK House of Lords 11. 21 March 2007.
  11. Hermann Schräder HS Kraftfutter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Gronau, Case C-265/87, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 11 July 1989.
  12. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, High Court of Australia, 1997.
  13. Korea-Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh Chilled and Frozen Beef, , Appellate Body Report WT/DS161/AB/R,11 December 2000;
  14. LG&E Energy Corp. v. Agrentine Republic, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No ARB/02/1, 3 October 2006.
  15. Maritime Delimitation in The Black Sea (Romania V. Ukraine), Judgment, ICJ reports, 3 February 2009.
  16. McCloy v New South Wales, Australian High Court’s Judgement, 7 October 2015.
  17. North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v. Denmark, Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ, 20 February 1969.
  18. Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, ECR Judgement, Case C-36/02, 2004.
  19. PL Holdings S.à.r.l. v. Republic of Poland, SCC Case No. V 2014/163, 2017.
  20. R (F) (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant), UK Supreme Court 17, Judgment, 21 April 2010.
  21. R. v. Oakes v David Edwin Oakes, Supreme Court of Canada, 1 S.C.R. 103, 28 Februrary 1986.
  22. The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex Parte Fedesa, ECJ, Case C-331/88, 1990.
  23. Thailand - Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes, (DS10/R - 37S/200), Report of the Panel dated 5 October 1990.
  24. United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (US – Shrimp), ‌Appellate Body Report, WT/DS58/AB/R, 6 November 1998.