法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
投資人對地主國仲裁的前置程序之探討-以等待期間條款為中心(Waiting Period as a Procedural Requirement Prior to the Initiation of Investor-State Arbitration)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 高啟中
出版日期: 2015.12
刊登出處: 台灣/中原財經法學第 35 期/47-108 頁
頁  數: 62 點閱次數: 1252
下載點數: 248 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 高啟中
關 鍵 詞: 投資人對地主國仲裁解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約國際投保協定雙邊投保協定自由貿易協定等待期間最惠國待遇
中文摘要: 當前國際投保協定(IIA)是作為國家與他國國民投資爭端公約(ICSID Convention)架構下提供投資人對地主國仲裁(investor-state arbitration)的主要解決機制,且多半要求提交仲裁前須先踐行特定前置程序,其中等待期間(waiting period)條款要求爭端雙方透過協商達成和解;無法和解始得仲裁。此種條款性質與效力攸關投資人程序利益;若等待期間屬強制規範,投資人未待協商談判期間屆滿即逕行提交仲裁,可能遭仲裁庭以「未遵循仲裁前置程序,仲裁庭欠缺管轄權」為由駁回。實務上,仲裁庭對此見解分歧,欠缺法安定性。若等待期間條款屬強制規定,投資人得否透過最惠國待遇(MFN)條款,援用第三方投保協定下對提交仲裁限制較寬鬆之規範而越過仲裁前置程序,亦對投資人程序利益有重大影響。
英文關鍵詞: investor-state arbitrationICSID ConventionIIABITFTAwaiting periodMFN
英文摘要: Most of the international investment agreements (IIAs) such as bilateral or multilateral investment agreements (BITs/MITs) as well as investment chapter in free trade agreements (FTAs) provide investor-state arbitration as primary means of investment dispute resolution under the framework of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States; (ICSID Convention). Many of these IIAs require pre-arbitration procedural conditions to be satisfied in order to initiate arbitration. Among those procedures, “waiting period” demands the disputing parties to firstly attempt to settle the disputes through direct negotiation; disputes could be submitted to arbitration only if they could not be settled within a specific period. The characteristic and legal effect of such waiting period play a crucial part to the procedural interest of the investors. If an arbitral tribunal considers it as mandatory, early submission to arbitration which violates the waiting period might result in the dismissal of the claims based on lack of jurisdiction. Cases like Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic and Enron v. Argentina held contrary opinions in this regard. As the principle of stare decisis is generally not applicable in international arbitration, it brings uncertainty and instability to investors and hinders their procedural interests. In addition, if a tribunal considers waiting period as mandatory, could the investor-claimant relies on the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause to refer to a less restrict pre-arbitration treatment contained in a third party IIA in order to bypass the waiting period under the current IIA? The case law, as demonstrated in Maffezini and Saline v. Jordan is also inconsistent. These issues deserve further analysis so that recommendations could be given to government concerning future IIAs negotiation and that assistance could be provided to Taiwanese investors for their procedural protection.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、投資人對地主國仲裁制度概說
一、仲裁庭管轄權
二、仲裁程序之進行
三、仲裁判斷的救濟與執行
參、等待期間條款之概念與案例實踐
一、等待期間條款之概念
二、關於等待期間條款之案例實踐
三、本文見解
肆、最惠國待遇於等待期間條款之適用
一、最惠國待遇之概念
二、最惠國待遇於程序性規範之適用
三、本文見解
伍、對我國涉外投保協定下等待期間條款之建議
陸、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
高啟中,投資人對地主國仲裁的前置程序之探討-以等待期間條款為中心,中原財經法學,第 35 期,47-108 頁,2015年12月。
返回功能列