【作者】 王伟；

【导师】 张目强；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 国际法学， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 伴随着国际投资仲裁体系的透明度改革不断深入,越来越多的国际投资仲裁裁决被世人所了解,进而暴露出国际投资仲裁体系中已经存在的国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题。对已有且较为典型的裁决不一致案件分析,国际投资仲裁裁决不一致案件可以分为四类:不同法律事实,相同投资权利,裁决不一致;不同法律事实,类似投资权利,裁决不一致;相同法律事实,相同投资权利,裁决不一致;相同法律事实,类似投资权利,裁决不一致。已有的学术文献中在国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题的原因分析上不乏诸多真知灼见,最具代表性的理论是将国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题的原因归为实体和程序两个方面的原因。然而少有学者从“解释不一致”的角度出发对国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题的原因进行剖析。“解释不一致”角度下的原因包括“解释主体方面的原因”、“解释对象方面的原因”和“解释方法方面的原因”。“解释主体方面的原因”包括“国际投资仲裁庭的临时性”和“国际投资仲裁庭的价值取向多元性”;“解释对象方面的原因”包括“国际投资法的碎片化”和“国际投资条约术语的模糊性”;“解释方法方面的原因”主要包括“解释规则的不确定性”。现有的国际投资仲裁规则是以国际商事仲裁规则为蓝本进行设计的。终局性是国际商事仲裁最显著的特征之一。因此,为了确保国际投资仲裁裁决的终局性,起草者在国际投资仲裁规则中规定当事人必须放弃上诉等外部救济,且只能通过内部撤销程序对仲裁裁决进行救济。然而,这些有限的撤销事由只能对程序合法性问题进行救济,不涉及实体的正确性。但是国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题恰恰是由于实体方面的事实认定和法律解释不一致引起的,因此,国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题难以通过现有的国际投资仲裁规则的内部救济程序进行救济。除此之外,国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题还使得国际投资法难以通过裁判程序实现确定性和一致性,进而损害了国际投资法的可预测性和可靠性,使东道国和投资者难以根据现有的国际投资法预测其行为可能产生的合法性效果,甚至会对东道国国内监管行为产生寒噤效应,并由此引发国际投资法的合法性危机。从长期下去还会挫败使用者的积极性并引发对国际投资仲裁能否胜任解决国际投资争端的信任危机。因此,对国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题进行有针对性的治理显得尤为必要。从宏观和微观两个角度出发,结合已有的学术理论和国际实践,可以将已有的治理路径区分“统一化治理路径”和“区域化治理路径”。“统一化治理路径”是指在全球层面进行统一化治理;“区域化治理路径”是指在单一条约文本中从区域层面对国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题进行治理。由于众多国家之间不同的利益诉求难以协调一致和部分国家在吸引外资上存在竞争关系而引发的“囚徒困境”,加之已有的国际实践,不难看出在现阶段“统一化治理路径”尚不具备其实施的条件。所以,“区域化治理路径”是现阶段较为可行的治理路径。基于此,在单一条约文本中从“解释对象”、“解释方法”和“解释主体”三个层面,“更新条约文本、明晰条约术语”,“编纂国际投资条约范本”,“建立缔约国联合解释机制”和“建立区域性上诉机构”是在现阶段治理国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题的最优方案。中国作为世界上最大的发展中国家,随着改革开放的进一步深化以及“一带一路”战略的深入推进,中国需要一个良好的国际投资争端解决机制为中国的涉外投资经济的发展保驾护航。另外,近期的“澳门世能公司诉老挝政府”案已经暴露出中国正面临着潜在的国际投资仲裁裁决不一致问题的风险。因此,中国也应当借鉴UNCTAD关于国际投资条约术语内涵的解释,及时“更新条约文本,明晰条约术语”,尝试建立“缔约国联合解释机制”或“区域性上诉机构”以应对可能发生的裁决不一致问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the deepening of the reform of transparency in the international investment arbitration system,more and more international investment arbitration awards are known to the world,which exposes the inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards.Based on the analysis of existing academic theories,we can divide inconsistent decisions into four categories.First,different tribunals come to different conclusions concerning same investment rights based on a different commercial situation.Second,different tribunals come to different conclusions concerning similar investment rights based on a different commercial situation.Third,different tribunals come to different conclusions concerning same investment rights based on a same commercial situation.Forth,different tribunals come to different conclusions concerning similar investment rights based on a same commercial situation.There have been lots of studies on the reasons of inconsistenct awards.The most representative theory concerning the reasons of inconsistency is that many researchers divide inconsistent decisions into two categories,that is substantive reason and procedural reason.However,few scholars analyze the reasons of inconsistency from the perspective of explanation."Inconsistent explanation" includes "Reasons of the objection of explanation","Reasons of the subject of explanation" and "Reasons of the method of explanation"."Reasons of the subject of explanation" includes "the ad hoc nature of tribunal" and "the diverse value pursuit of tribunal"."Reasons of the objection of explanation" includes "the fragmentation of the international investment law" and "the ambiguous terms in international investment treaty"."Reasons of the method of explanation" includes "the uncertainty of the rules of explanation".The rules of international investment arbitration are designed on the rules of international commercial arbitration.Finality is one of the most salient features of international commercial arbitration.In order to ensure the finality of international investment arbitration awards,the drafters stipulate that parties must abstain from external remedies,such as appeal,and that arbitral awards shall only be remedied by internal annulment process.These limited reasons of revocation can only remedy the procedural legitimacy,while do not involve the correctness of the entity.However,the inconsistency in international investment arbitration system is precisely caused by the inconsistency of substantive facts and the inconsistency of explaination.As a result,according to the existing international investment arbitration rules,it is difficult to remedy the inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards by the internal relief procedures.In addition,the inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards undermines the certainty and coherence of international investment law,which indirectly undermines the predictability and reliability.All of these make it hard for host countries and investors to judge the possible legal effects of their actions by the existing international investment law.Its also have a chilling effect on the domestic regulatory actions of the host country.Thus,the inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards becomes a trigger point for the legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration.It will also trigger the crisis of credibility in international investment arbitration system.Therefore,it is particularly necessary to conduct targeted governance on the inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards.From the macroscopic and microcosmic perspectives,combining the relevant academic theories and international practices,the governance path of the inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards can be distinguished as"Unified governance path" and "Regional governance path"."Unified governance path" refers to the unified governance at the global level."Regional governance path"refers to the governance of inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards from a regional perspective,for example,remedying the inconsistency in a single treaty text.Due to different interests of different countries can not be coordinated and the "prisoner’s dilemma" triggered by the competitive relationship between some countries in attracting foreign investment,plus the existing international practice,it is not difficult to see that,at this stage,the "Unified governance path" dose not have the conditions for implementation.On the other hand,the "Regional governance path" is more feasible than the "Unified governance path".Therefore,it will be better way to remedy the inconsistency of international investment awards by the "Regional governance path"."Regional governance path"can be divided into three types."updating the treaty text and clarifying the treaty terns","establishing the joint interpretation mechanism of the contracting states" and"establishing regional appellate mechanism".With the further deepening of "Reform and Opening" as well as the "One Belt,One Road",China,as the largest developing country in the world,needs a good international investment dispute settlement mechanism to escort the development of China’s foreign investment economy.In addition,the case of Sanum Investments Limited v.Lao People’s Democratic Republic has exposed that China is facing the potential risks of inconsistency of international investment arbitration awards.Therefore,China should learn how to explain the meaning of terms of international investment treaty in a better way from UNCTAD.There are still many other beneficial measures,such as updating the treaty text,clarifying the treaty terms,establishing joint interpretation mechanism and regional appellate mechanism.更多还原