Measuring gross disproportion in environmental precaution to establish regulatory expropriation and quantum of compensation in international investment arbitration

This article applies a new methodology for the assessment of environmental risk prevention expenditure to the adjudication process of international investment arbitration. The Disproportion Factor Model can be implemented by investment arbitration tribunals to evaluate the reasonableness of environmental regulations imposed by host states that have a damaging impact upon foreign investment activity, such as would be the subject for a claim of indirect or regulatory expropriation. In this setting the Disproportion Factor Model can help illustrate whether a host state measure is unreasonable and in that sense should engage the investor’s entitlement to compensation under international law. It also acts as an objective guide to the setting of an appropriate quantum of compensation for the injured investor by reference to the environmental benefits that the regulation aimed to achieve relative to their costs, as evaluated by a rational decision-maker. The formula should be consequently viewed as a useful tool in judicial analysis by international investment tribunals.     

Bilateral Investment Treaties,Credible Commitment,and the Rule of (International) Law: Do BITs Promote Foreign Direct Investment?

A long line of research, beginning with Macaulay's (1963) well‐known study of “Non‐Contractual Relations in Business,” suggests that the formal trappings of domestic law often have effects on private behavior that are, at best, “indirect, subtle, and ambiguous” ( Macaulay 1984 :155). Law and society scholars have spent somewhat less time exploring whether international law's effects on behavior are similarly attenuated. In this article I examine whether foreign investors take the presence of strong formal international legal protections into account when deciding where to invest. I focus on whether the presence of bilateral investment treaties, or BITs, meaningfully influences investment decisions. I present results from a statistical analysis that examines whether the formally strongest BITs—those that guarantee investors access to international arbitration to enforce investors' international legal rights—are associated with greater investment flows. I find no clear link between treaty protections and investment, a finding consistent with past law and society research but in tension with claims common in the BIT literature that the treaties should have dramatic effects on investor behavior.     

建立国际投资仲裁的上诉机制问题析评

近年来,国际投资仲裁案件迅猛增加,不仅使东道国主权面临挑战,也引起出现有投资条约的诸多设计缺陷所导致的仲裁合法性危机。改造投资仲裁机制已经不再仅仅停留在学术争鸣阶段而是迅速发展到具体的条约改革实践阶段。其中,建立仲裁的上诉机制就是这种改革实践的一种具体表现。建立仲裁的上诉机制是对传统投资仲裁体制的重大变革,尚存在许多理论争议和政治及法律障碍,但由于这种改革已经进入实践阶段并由美国积极倡导,势必对国际投资争端解决的未来发展趋势产生重要影响。     

The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?

With growth in foreign investment and in the number of companies investing in foreign countries, the application of general principles of public international law has not been deemed adequate to regulate foreign investment and there is, as yet, no comprehensive international treaty on the regulation of foreign investment. Consequently, states have resorted to bilateral investment treaties (BITs), regional trade and international investment agreements (IIAs) and free trade agreements to supplement and complement the regime of protection for foreign investors. In the absence of an international investment court, states hosting foreign investment or investor states have opted for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). This mechanism has brought about its own challenges to the international law of foreign investment due to inconsistency in the application and interpretation of the key principles of international investment law by such arbitration tribunals, and further, there is no appellate mechanism to bring about some cohesion and consistency in jurisprudence. Therefore, there are various proposals mooted by scholars to address these challenges and they range from tweaks to BITs and IIAs, the creation of an appellate mechanism and the negotiation of a multilateral treaty to proposals for reform of ISDS only. After assessing the merits and demerits of such proposals, this study goes further, arguing for the creation of a World Investment Organisation with a standing mechanism for settlement of investment disputes in order to ensure legal certainty, predictability and the promotion of the flow of foreign investment in a sustainable and responsible manner.

     

浅析我国仲裁司法监督的范围

目前,我国对内外仲裁的司法监督实行＂双轨制＂,其涉外仲裁裁决仅涉及审查和监督程序运作,国内仲裁裁决则涉及实体和程序两方面的审查。针对仲裁监督的范围,学界在＂程序监督论＂和＂全面监督论＂的问题上一直存有分歧。本文对比分析了这两大观点,并借鉴了英美法系和大陆法系国家的立法规定,提出了完善我国仲裁司法监督范围的几点建议。     

国际投资仲裁机构对涉及人权问题的投资纠纷的审理

国际投资仲裁的当事人在仲裁中提出人权方面诉求的情况在最近十几年里缓慢地增加了,仲裁庭只有在仲裁管辖条款能够覆盖人权问题,并且当事人所选择的适用法能够为人权问题的解决提供指引的情况下,才能就与投资有关的人权纠纷做出裁决。现有的国际投资仲裁机构自身存在很多缺陷,不适宜作为审理与投资有关的人权问题的理想场所。我国应该支持与投资有关的人权问题主要通过东道国的司法途径进行救济。     

Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law

The article outlines a simple thesis: that international investmentarbitration – pursuant to regional and bilateral investmenttreaties – offers the clearest example of global administrativelaw, strictly construed, yet to have emerged. We present thisthesis by explicating four key features of investment treaties:they permit investor claims against the state without exhaustinglocal remedies; they allow claims for damages; they allow investorsto directly seek enforcement of awards before domestic courts;and they facilitate forum-shopping. Our argument is that, owingto this unique conjunction of features, the regulatory conductof states is, to an unusual extent, subject to control throughcompulsory international adjudication. Having highlighted thesefeatures, we then claim that investment arbitration is bestanalogized to domestic administrative law rather than to internationalcommercial arbitration, especially since investment arbitrationengages disputes arising from the exercise of public authorityby the state as opposed to private acts of the state. Further,we claim that the linkages between investment arbitration anddomestic legal systems are more direct and more closely integratedthan other forms of international adjudication in the publicsphere. For these reasons, we argue that the emerging regimeof investment arbitration is to be understood as constitutingan important and powerful manifestation of global administrativelaw.     

合同债权与仲裁条款转让的再审视——基于实体法、程序法和冲突法的视角

合同转让时,尤其是合同权利转让时仲裁条款是否随之转让的问题,是近年来国际商事仲裁领域的一个重要话题。目前,国内理论界的主流观点以及司法实践支持仲裁条款自动转让。但仲裁条款自动转让的理论依据并不充分,也未解决所有问题,而且对于仲裁条款转让的论证仅仅限于国内法上的视角,并未考虑国际合同转让中仲裁条款的效力和相关的法律冲突与法律适用等问题。本文旨在从实体法、程序法和冲突法的多维角度,进一步探讨合同仲裁条款转让的理论和实践问题,并对当前国内外的立法与实践进行评判,以期进一步完善我国国内的法制和实践。     

Challenging arbitral awards: A comparative study of Chinese law, british law and UNCITRAL model law

Support and supervision of a court ensure the integrity of the arbitral process and protect the public interest. However, to prevent the confidence of the arbitral system from being damaged, the judicial control should not be too strict. The support and supervision of a court can be seen in many aspects, among which is to challenge an award. Under the Chinese arbitration law, an award made by a foreign arbitration agency is regarded as a foreign award, challenge of which involves resisting recognition and enforcement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China or on the principle of reciprocity. Accordingly, an award made by a Chinese arbitration agency is regarded as a domestic award, challenge of which includes setting aside and resisting enforcement. As to the grounds and procedures for challenging a domestic award, including foreign-related awards and non-foreign-related awards, some Chinese provisions are either obscure or contradictory. There may be room for the Chinese system to be modernized. The Model Law and the English Arbitration Act of 1996 may be used for its reference.     

Difficulties Confronted by ICSID Tribunals in Deciding International Investment Corruption Cases and Possible Solutions

The issue of corruption has attracted increasing attention in the study and practice of international investment law during recent years. After taking prudent consideration of the corruption defense invoked by the host states in some international investment arbitration cases involved with corruption, International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals accordingly determined the final awards. However, some parts of the arbitral jurisprudence aroused strong criticism, especially with regard to the ICSID tribunals’ reasoning that arbitrators have no jurisdiction over corruption-tainted international investments. The ICSID tribunals are legitimately supposed to exercise their jurisdiction and are lawfully obliged to probe into the nature of corrupt activities. The tribunals are strongly expected to adopt a balanced approach in deciding the merits and fairly weighing the obligations, rights, and interests of both disputing parties. It is preferable to strengthen the collaborative interaction between ICSID proceedings and domestic anti-corruption enforcement mechanisms when it comes to combating corrupt international investment activities. Existing international treaties (or specific treaty provisions) on combating corruption in international business transactions and calling for international cooperation, alongside domestic anti-corruption enforcement legislation, have actually laid solid legal foundations for the establishment of such an anti-corruption coordinative mechanism between ICSID and domestic corruption regulatory authorities on the global level.     

论国际投资争议的“强制性仲裁”

传统理论与实践都认为，自愿性是仲裁的基础和核心。但随着国际社会与国际交往的发展。在国际投资领域已经开始出现了强制性仲裁。国际投资领域中的强制性仲裁的出现，对于国际商事仲裁的发展具有一定的影响，是国际商事仲裁发展的新动向，而且随着发达国家通过投资条约及其他国际条约日益加强对投资者的保护。以及发展中国家日益加强对外国投资的吸引力度，强制性仲裁可能会有更大的发展。其所涉及范围也可能从投资领域扩及到其他领域。     

High‐End Demand: The Legal Profession as a Source of Judicial Selection Reform in Urban China

Most studies of comparative judicial politics suggest that judicial autonomy emerges from democratic competition, but despite its authoritarian political system, China has introduced reforms that increase merit‐based competition, transparency, and modest professional autonomy in local courts. Variations in judicial selection procedures across urban China reflect differences in local markets for professional legal services: when mid‐ranking judges can easily find lucrative local employment as lawyers, court leaders strategically reform appointment and promotion mechanisms to retain these young, but experienced, judges. These findings are based on nearly fifteen months of in‐country fieldwork, conducted between 2012 and 2014, including forty‐nine interviews with judges across three different cities: Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Chengdu. Employing the subnational comparative method, this article not only builds theory regarding the legal profession's role in authoritarian states, but also offers new empirical detail regarding the selection, performance evaluation, and behavior of judges in urban China.     

从旭普林公司案看我国法院对国际商事仲裁的监督

运用国际商事仲裁的一般理论和国际商事仲裁立法与实践,结合我国法院就国际商会国际仲裁院仲裁庭根据该院仲裁规则就德国旭普林公司案在我国上海作出的仲裁裁决所实施的司法监督,探讨了国际商事仲裁裁决与涉外裁决、外国裁决和《纽约公约》项下的非本国裁决之间的联系与区别。由此认为本案项下的裁决,既不是我国裁决,也不是外国裁决,而是《纽约公约》项下的非内(本)国裁决。     

国际投资仲裁中的社会利益保护

传统国际投资仲裁无论在程序安排还是价值取向上都倾向于偏袒外国私人投资者的经济利益,而对于东道国社会利益的保护则是缺乏的。由于东道国在推动经济与社会发展的同时,不仅仅考虑的是经济利益,也需要考虑某些社会利益或者社会价值的需求,因此在国际投资争端仲裁中,应当重视保护东道国的社会利益。在晚近的投资仲裁程序与实践中,保护东道国的社会公共利益的趋势在不断增强。     

Latest evolution in the judicial intendance mechanism over arbitration in China

Based on past court practices, the Supreme Court of China promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which is in line with the international trend of justice-arbitration relationship and reflects the pro-arbitration idea, as well as making a new step forward in the evolution of China’s judicial intendance over arbitration. However, confined by current legislation and due to inadequate judicial experiences, some problems still remain in the judicial intendance mechanism for further solution. Yu Xifu, Ph.D, is a judge dealing with most maritime and foreign-related commercial cases. His research is focused on international private law, especially international commercial arbitration. His works include a monograph, i.e. Judicial Intendance and Assistance in International Commercial Arbitration; And some articles, i.e. The relation between adjudication and arbitration, The definition and legal meaning of the place of arbitration, The choice-of-law of negotiable instrument, Finding foreign law-difficulties and way-out.     

浅析涉外民事案件的识别问题——兼评《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第8条

识别是国际私法中的重要制度,是司法机关或仲裁机关处理涉外民商事案件时确定冲突规则从而确定准据法的前提条件。由于各国法律在观念和制度上存在各种差异,识别冲突在所难免。传统观念认为,法官仅是本国法律的执行者,因此识别仅能依据本国法进行。这种观点未站在国际民商事自由交往的角度,实际上对内外国法没有进行平等对待,在个案中也可能无法实现实质的公平正义。在具体涉外民商事案件的审判中,当法官敏锐发觉识别冲突的存在时,应将识别纳入法律适用、个案裁判的全过程,从实现司法终极目标角度进行法律适用,即识别的过程也应体现实质正义的要求。     

Contentious Politics in the Courthouse: Law as a Tool for Resisting Authoritarian States in the Middle East

Under what conditions will individuals mobilize law to resist states that operate above the law? In authoritarian countries, particularly in the Middle East, law is a weapon the state wields for social control, centralizing power, and legitimation. Authoritarian legal codes are overwhelmingly more deferential to state authority than protective of citizens' rights. Nevertheless, people throughout the Arab world deploy law to contest a broad array of state abuses: land expropriations, unlawful arrests, denials of jobs and welfare, and so on. Using detailed interviews in Jordan and Palestine, I outline a theory of law as a tool for resisting authoritarian state actors. Integrating qualitative insights with survey experiments fielded in Egypt and Jordan, I test this theory and show that aggrieved individuals mobilize law when they expect courts are powerful and attainable allies in contentious politics. My results further demonstrate that judicial independence does not uniformly increase authoritarian publics' willingness to access courts.     

国际投资仲裁中的精神损害赔偿研究

国际公法领域的精神损害赔偿具有悠久历史,但在国际投资法领域,精神损害赔偿则是一个新兴话题。鉴于投资条约的特殊建构,投资者固为投资者-国家仲裁体制中的申诉者,因此,申诉者成为国际投资仲裁中精神损害赔偿请求的最常见主体。但这并不意味着,固为被申诉方的国家没有寻求精神损害赔偿的可能性。晚近以来的国际投资仲裁实践均表明,这两种类型的精神损害赔偿均有发生的可能,为此,有必要结合已有案例,研究国际投资仲裁中精神损害赔偿的合法依据,并在此基础上对相关未决问题进行尝试性解释。     

气候变化背景下外国投资者与政府争端的解决——以我国双边投资协定为例

我国签订的双边投资协定中一般都规定了投资者与东道国政府间投资争端的解决方式,尤其是晚近我国所签订的双边投资协定多数允许投资者将争端提交国际仲裁。但是,在目前全球应对气候变化背景下,作为温室气体排放大国,我国有义务控制和减少温室气体的排放,采取相应的环境规制措施,这些环境规制措施可能会损害或影响到外国投资者在我国的利益。根据双边投资协定,外国投资者可能会将这些争端提交国际仲裁,我国有可能被国际仲裁庭裁定为此对外国投资者承担相应的赔偿责任。面对新形势,我国必须重新审视双边投资协定中投资者与东道国投资争端解决方式的相关规定。     

Investment Rules and the New Constitutionalism

The new model for economic and political renovation mandates the entrenchment, beyond the reach of majoritarian control, of rules for the free movement of transnational capital. This "new constitutionalism" removes key aspects of economic life from the influence of domestic politics within nation states. A manifestation of this new orthodoxy is the network of bilateral investment treaties designed to ensure foreign investors security from "discrimination" and "expropriation," and conferring standing on investors to sue in the event that their investment interests are impaired. This paper examines the agency of the state in promoting this self-binding regime of investment rules and its potential impact on domestic constitutional regimes. Of particular concern here are constitutional arrangements that protect property, such as that recently enacted in the Republic of South Africa, that deviate from the norms expressed in the transnational investment-rules regime.