论文部分内容阅读
《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》的缔结历史表明,长期的协商和谈判并未促成缔约国间就“投资”一词的含义达成统一意见。同时,由于ICSID仲裁庭的组成依个案而不同,对于“投资”的界定每个仲裁庭的方法也并不完全相同。根据ICSID仲裁庭过去的判例,仲裁庭主要依据两种方法对“投资”进行界定。ICSID仲裁庭应当在充分地尊重缔约国因接受ICSID仲裁体制所让渡的主权权利的基础上,严格地解释《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》及双边投资保护条约中“投资”的含义。因此,笔者认为确有必要改进仲裁庭根据《维也纳条约法公约》界定“投资”的方法。
The history of the conclusion of the Convention for the Settlement of Non-governmental Investment Disputes between States and Other States shows that long-term negotiations and negotiations have not resulted in a consensus among the signatories on the meaning of the word “investment”. At the same time, as the composition of arbitration tribunals for ICSID varies from case to case, the method for defining each arbitral tribunal for “investment” is not exactly the same. According to the past jurisprudence of the ICSID arbitration tribunal, the arbitration tribunal mainly defined the “investment” according to two methods. The ICSID arbitration tribunal shall give due consideration to the State party’s strict interpretation of the “Convention on the Settlement of National Investment Disputes between States and Other Countries” and “Investment” in the BIT on the basis of accepting the sovereign rights conferred by the ICSID arbitration system meaning. Therefore, I believe there is a real need to improve the way in which the arbitral tribunal defines “investment” in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.