دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 محقق و مدرس دانشگاه پاریس 1 پانتئون-سوربن

2 دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران، دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد (حقوق تطبیقی اتحادیۀ اروپا)، دانشگاه ساپینزا رم

چکیده

اگرچه محرمانگی از جمله مزیت‌های داوری نسبت به رسیدگی قضایی است، داوری سرمایه‌گذاری به‌علت حضور دولت‌ها نیازمند شفافیت بیشتری است. ازاین‌رو انتقادهای زیادی به محرمانگی داوری سرمایه‌گذاری وارد شده است. بسیاری از این انتقادها ریشه در حقوق بشر و به رسمیت شناختن حق دسترسی آزادانه به اطلاعات توسط مردم و تعهد دولت‌ها به افشای اسناد توسط دادگاه‌های منطقه‌ای حقوق بشری دارد. انتقادهای وارده تاکنون موجب ایجاد تغییراتی در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری شده است. تغییر قواعد داوری ایکسید در سال‌های 2006 و 2022 و همچنین انتشار قواعد آنسیترال یکی از آخرین اقدامات در زمینۀ شفافیت در داوری معاهده‌ای میزان دسترسی عموم به آرای داوری را افزایش داده است. آخرین اقدام صورت‌گرفته در این زمینه، تصویب کنوانسیون شفافیت در داوری معاهده‌ای در سال 2015، معروف به کنوانسیون موریتیوس است. دو اصل شفافیت و محرمانگی از بنیادی‌ترین پایه‌های داوری محسوب می‌شوند. این دو اصل ارتباطی تنگاتنگی با یکدیگر دارند و گاهی در تعارض با یکدیگر قرار می‌گیرند. در پرونده‌های مربوط به داوری سرمایه‌گذاری که نتیجه اغلب بر منافع عمومی تأثیرگذار است، این تضاد به اوج خود می‌رسد. در این حالت، نحوۀ ایجاد تعادل و تعامل بین این مفاهیم، از موضوعات مهمی است که در این پژوهش به آن پرداخته می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Right to Access Information in Investment Arbitration: A Conflict between Confidentiality and Transparency

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nima Nasrollahi Shahri 1
  • Leyla Ebrahimi 2

1 Teaching and Research Fellow, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

2 MA. in International Trade Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba’I, Tehran, Iran, MA student of European Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, University of Sapienza, Rome, Italy

چکیده [English]

While confidentiality is often cited as an advantage of arbitration over litigation, involvement of states in investment arbitration calls for a higher degree of transparency. Thus, confidentiality practices in investment arbitration have come under harsh criticism. Such criticism has to do, at least in part, with developments in the field of human rights law culminating in the recognition of the right to access information as a human right along with a duty of states to divulge information by regional human rights courts. This criticism has already brought about a change in investment arbitration. ICSID amended its rules of procedure in 2006 and more recently in 2022. UNCITRAL also annexed a set of rules regarding transparency in treaty-based arbitration to its arbitration rules. Finally, in 2015, United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Arbitration was concluded in an effort to maximize transparency. This study deals with how transparency and confidentiality interact where they appear to be most conflicting, that is to say in international investment arbitration.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Information
  • ICSID
  • Transparency
  • Investment arbitration
  • Free Access
  • human rights
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. دالزر، رودلف و شروئر، کریستف (2008). اصول حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری. ترجمۀ سید قاسم زمانی و به آذین حسیبی، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ حقوق شهر دانش.
  2. عسگری پوریا (1391). حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در رویۀ داوری سرمایه‌گذاری. چ سوم، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ حقوق شهردانش.
  3. فلدرن، هوهن و ایگناتس، زایدل (1999). حقوق بین‌الملل اقتصادی. ترجمۀ سید قاسم زمانی، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ حقوق شهر دانش.

 

 

ب) مقالات

  1. محسنی، وجیهه؛ هاشمی، سیدمحمد؛ جاوید، محمدجواد و عباسی، بیژن (1398). تحلیل حقوقی نسبت‌سنجی حق دسترسی عموم به اطلاعات با تحقق حقوق شهروندی با تأکید بر نظام حقوقی ایران. فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، 62، 321-354.
  2. انگلیسی
  3. A) Books
  4. Bianchi, A., & Peters Anne (2013). Transparency in International Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  5. Bishop, C. A. (2011). Access to Information as a Human Right. Law & Society, Texas, Lfb Scholarly Publishing.
  6. Weiler, T. (2004). NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects. New York, Transnational Publishers.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Ackerman, J. M. & Sandoval-Ballesteros, Irma E (2006). The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 85-130.
  3. Banisar, D. (2011). The Right to Information and Privacy: Balancing Rights and Managing Conflicts, World Bank Institute Governance Working Paper, No. 80740.
  4. Elsaman, M. (2020). The Nexus of Access to Information, Good Governance, and Investment Negotiation. Washington International Law Journal Association, 29(2), 383-410.
  5. Franck, S. D. (2005). The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions. Fordham Law Review, 73(4), 1521-1625.
  6. Hafner-Burton, E.M. & Steinert-Threlkeld, Zachary C. & Victor, David G. (2016). Predictability v. Flexibility: Secrecy in International Investment Arbitration, World Politics, 1-41.
  7. Hazzaa, H. & Kumpf, S. N.(2015). Egypt’s Ban on Public Interest Litigation in Government Contracts: A Case Study of Judicial Chill, Stanford Journal of International law, 51(2), 147-171.
  8. Hins, W. & Voorhoof, D. (2007). Access to State-Held Information as a Fundamental Right under the European Convention on Human Rights, European Constitutional Law Review, 3(1), 114-126.
  9. Jain, A. (2012). Good Governance and Right to Information: A Perspective, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 54(4), 506-519.
  10. Johnson, L. & Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N., & Orellana Marcos, A., et al. (2013). New UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules on Transparency: Application, Content and Next Steps, Investment Treaty News, 4(4).
  11. Karton, J. (2012). A Conflict of Interests: Seeking a Way Forward on Publication of International Arbitral Awards. Journal of Arbitration International, 28(3), 447-486.
  12. Lalive, P.A. (1976). Problemes Relatifs A de L’a Arbitrage International Commercial. in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 120, 573-582.
  13. Levin, P.T. (2009). The Swedish Model of Public Administration: Separation of Powers – The Swedish Style, Journal of Administration and Governance, 4(1), 31-46.
  14. Magraw Jr. Daniel et al. (2009). Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15, 337–360.
  15. Maupin, J. A. (2013). Transparency in International Investment Law: The Good, the Bad, and the Murky, Published in 'Transparency in International Law' by Andrea Bianchi and Anne Peters, eds, Cambridge University Press, 142-171.
  16. Orellana, M. (2007). Science, Risk and Uncertainty: Public Health Measures and Investment Disciplines. in “The Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations”.
  17. Peterson, L., & Gray, K. (2003). International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration, International Law Institute for Sustainable Development, 18(77).
  18. Salacuse, J.W. (2007). Is There a Better Way? Alternative Methods of Treaty-Based, Investor-State Dispute Resolution. Fordham International Law Journal, 13(1), p. 138.
  19. Vleugels, R. (2011). Overview of all FOI Laws. Fringe Special Biweekly Journal.
  20. Vollenhoven, J. (2015). The Right to Freedom of Expression: The Mother of our Democracy, Electronic Law Journal, 18(6), 2299-2327.
  21. Zoellner, C. S. (2006). Transparency: An Analysis of an Evolving Fundamental Principal in International Economic Law. Journal of International Law, 27(2), 579-628.

 

  1. C) Thesis
  2. Katranstiotis Dimitrios (2013). Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: From the Current towards the Future Normative Framework, Dissertation, International Hellenic University.

 

  1. D) Awards
  2. Ad hoc Arbitration (2000), S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, UNCITRAL, First Partial Award.
  3. Ad hoc Arbitration (2008), Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade Claims v. United States, Award on Jurisdiction.
  4. ECHR (1987), Leander v. Sweden, App. no 9248/81.
  5. ECHR (1989), Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, App. no. 10454/83
  6. ECHR (1998), Guerra v. Italy, App. No. 14967/89.
  7. ECHR (2004), Case of Oneryildiz v. Turkey, App. No. 48939/99.
  8. ECHR (2008), Budayeva and Others v. Russia, App. No. 15339/02.
  9. ECHR (2009), Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, App. No. 37374/05.
  10. ECHR (2009), Tatar v. Romania, App. No. 67021/01.
  11. IACHR (2006), Claude Reyes et. al. v. Chile, No. 12.108.
  12. ICSID (1992), Abaclat and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 3.
  13. ICSID (1992), AMCO Asia Corp. et al. v. The Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Award.
  14. ICSID (2002), United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., Reasons for Judgment, and Supplementary Reasons for Judgment, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/1.
  15. ICSID (2004), MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7.
  16. ICSID (2005), Methanex Corp. v. United States, Final Award.
  17. ICSID (2005), S.A. and Lucchetti Perْ A. v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4.
  18. ICSID (2006). Biwater Gauff Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3.
  19. ICSID (2007), Sociedad Anَnima Eduardo Vieira v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, Award.
  20. ICSID (2010), Case of Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability.
  21. ICSID (2010), Foresti and Others v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/01, Award.
  22. ICSID (2010), Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12
  23. ICSID (2012), Vattenfall AB et al. v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12.
  24. ICSID (2015), ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/47.
  25. PCA (2005), Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227.

 

  1. D) Documents
  2. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the “Aarhus Convention”), Denmark, 1998.
  3. Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, Tromsø, 2009.
  4. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 32nd Session, Gambia, 2002.
  5. General Comment No. 34 on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/GC/34, Geneva, 2011.
  6. Law 32/2014, Egypt, 2014.
  7. The German Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz), Germany, 2006.
  8. Transparency and Third-Party Participation in Investor State Dispute Settlement Procedures, Statement, OECD Investment Committee, Number 2005/1, France, 2005.
  9. United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (the "Mauritius Convention on Transparency"), New York, 2014.

 

  1. E) Websites
  2. Harm and Public Interest Test, last accessed at 2023/01/22. Available at:

https://www.right2info.org/exceptions-toaccess/harm-and-publicinterest-test

  1. Settlement Negotiations and Public Disclosure Laws, Legal Intelligencer, last accessed at 2023/01/22. Available at:

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202763357348/

  1. The Settlement of Investment Disputes: A Discussion of Democratic Accountability and the Public Interest – Investment Treaty News, last accessed at 2023/01/22. Available at:

https://www.iisd.org/itn/en/2017/03/13/the-settlement-of-investment-disputes-a-discussion-of-democratic-accountability-and-the-public-interest-lise-johnson-and-brooke-skartvedt-guven/

  1. Webcasting as a tool to Increase Transparency in Dispute Settlement Procedures, Center for International Environmental Law, Available at:

https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Webcasting_21Jun10.pdf