نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار، گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
تعهد کشورهای میزبان به رفتار منصفانه و عادلانه در برابر سرمایه‌گذار خارجی که متضمن حفظ ثبات محیط سرمایه‌گذاری، شفافیت، رعایت دادرسی عادلانه و … است، در کنار پویایی مسائل مرتبط با توسعۀ پایدار و ضرورت بازنگری و تغییر قوانین توسط کشورها و چگونگی تفسیر همزمان این تعهدات توسط دیوان‌های داوری، از مسائل اساسی سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی است. در این زمینه در این مقاله ابتدا چگونگی تعامل و نحوۀ تفسیر این تعهدات در معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری و سپس آرای داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی بررسی و پس از آن تلاش می‌شود با در نظر داشتن ویژگی «معیار» در حقوق بین‌الملل، به چگونگی تعامل این معیار با تعهدات ناشی از توسعۀ پایدار توجه شود. در نتیجة این بررسی مشخص می‌شود معیار رفتار منصفانه و عادلانه با ویژگی‌های یک معیار حقوقی مانند گسترة شمول، انعطاف‌پذیری، قابلیت تفسیر و .... با در نظر داشتن موضوع و هدف موافقت‌نامه‌های سرمایه‌گذاری در پرتو سایر الزامات موافقت‌نامه مانند توسعۀ پایدار قابل تفسیر است و با توجه به آرای داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی به نظر می‌رسد، دیوان‌های داوری برای ایجاد تعامل میان این تعهدات برخی مؤلفه‌های رفتاری را برای کشورهای میزبان در نظر گرفته‌اند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Interaction between Sustainable Development and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Arbitrations
نویسندگان [English]
- Mehdi Piri 1
- Yasaman Azadi 2
1 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
The obligation of the host state to fair and equitable treatment of foreign investors includes maintaining the stability of the investment environment, transparency, compliance with legal procedures and etc. On the other hand, sustainable development is a dynamic concept whose implementation requires constant domestic and international regulation. A question may arise as to how these two principles can be balanced, most particularly in investment arbitrations. In this article, the possible contrast between these two commitments and the case-law of international investment arbitration on this subject will be examined. It will be concluded that the fair and equitable treatment standard can be interpreted with respect to the object and purpose of an investment agreement in light of the other requirements of the agreement, such as sustainable development. With regard to international investment arbitration case-law, it seems that arbitral tribunals have used behavioral criteria to make interaction among such obligations possible.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- fair and equitable treatment standard
- sustainable development
- international investment agreements
- investment arbitrations
- international investment arbitration case-law
- فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
- پیران، حسین (1389)، مسائل حقوقی سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی، تهران: گنج دانش.
- ضیایی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1385)، حقوق معاهدات بین‌المللی، چ سوم، تهران: گنج دانش.
ب) مقالات
- بهزادی پارسی، آرش؛ سیفی، سید جمال (1398)، «رابطۀ میان حقوق سرمایه‌گذار خارجی و تعهدات بین‌المللی حقوق بشر و محیط زیست»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، سال 36، ش 61.
- ضیایی، سید یاسر (1393)؛ جایگاه تعهدات زیست‌محیطی در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال پانزدهم، ش 42.
- انگلیسی
- A) Book
- Dolzer, Rudolf & Schreuer, Christoph (2012), Principles of International Investment Law (2nd Edition), Oxford University Press.
- M Franck, Thomas (1995), Fairness in International Law and Institutions, Oxford.
- B) Article
- Bodansky, D. (2003), Rules and Standards in International Law. New York Law School, (March 31, 2003), pp.1-18.
- Casey, Anthony J. & Niblett, Anthony (2017), "The Death of Rules and Standards," Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 92 : Iss. 4 , Article 3.
- Dolzer, R., (SPRING 2005), “Fair And Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties”, The International Lawyer, Vol. 39, No. 1.
- Dumberry, Patrick, (2014) "The Protection of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105", 31(1) Journal of International Arbitration , pp.47-74.
- Kläger, R., (2010), “Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Look at the Theoretical Underpinnings of Legitimacy and Fairness”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, 11.
- Rincon, C.G.C., (2011), The Relationship between International Investment Agreements and the WTO Legal System-Conflicts and Sustainable Development, Transnational Dispute Management.
- Root, Elihu (1910), President of the Society on “The basis of protection to citizens residing abroad, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting, Vol. 4.
- Islam, Rumana (2016), Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in Arbitral Practice: Sustainable Development in Context, Bangladesh Journal of Law, Vol. 16, No. 1 at pp. 21-68.
- Schill, S.W. (2006), "Fair and Equitable Treatment under Investment Treaties as an Embodiment of the Rule of Law", IILJ Working Paper, Global Administrative Law Series.
- Schauer, Frederick (2003), "The Convergence of Rules and Standards." New Zealand Law Revie , pp 303-328.
- Thomas, J. (2002), Reflections On Article 1105of NAFTA: History, State Practice And The Influence Of Commentators, 17 ICSID Review- FILJ 21.
- Zhu, Ying (2018), "Fair and Equitable Treatment of Foreign Investors in an Era of Sustainable Development" Renmin University of China Law School.
- C) Documents
- North American Free Trade Agreement ‘NAFTA); signed 17 December 1992, entered into force 1 January 1994.
- The Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Concerning the Trans boundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes, 1986.
- The Basel Convention on the Control of Trans boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1989.
- The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, 2001.
- The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), January 1, 1994.
- The UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972.
- UN Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Paragraph 2, UN DOC.A/RES/42/187 (1987).
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Concluded at Vienna on 23 May, 1969.
- D) Cases
- Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award (Nov. 3, 2015).
- Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanz., ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award of July 24, 2008.
- Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J.
- Chemtura Corp. v. Gov’t of Can. UNCITRAL, Award of Aug. 2, 2010.
- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of May 12, 2005.
- Gami Invs., Inc. v. Gov’t of the United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Final Award of November 15, 2004.
- Glamis Gold Ltd v. United States, UNCITRAL, Award of June 8 2009.
- Marion Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/1, Award of May 16, 2012.
- Mondev International Ltd v. United Stated of America, ICSID, Case No. ARB/(AF)/99/2, Award of October 11, 2002.
- Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/08, Award of September 11, 2007.
- Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. Oriental Republic of Uru, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award of July 8, 2016.
- S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Gov’t of Can., UNCITRAL, Partial Award (Nov. 13, 2000).
- Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award of Mar. 17, 2006
- Sempra Energy International vs. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award of 28 September, 2007.
- Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A vs. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/02, Award of 29 May, 2003
- Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan: N.Z. intervening), Judgment, 2014 I.C.J.
- Yuri Bogdanov & Yulia Bogdanova v. Republic of Mold., SCC Case No. V 2012/09/01 Final Award of Apr 16. 2013.
)