设立投资仲裁上诉机制的路径选择

目前,各国就投资仲裁上诉机制改革提交给联合国国际贸易法委员会第三工作组的建议主要有两种模式,分别是设立多边投资法院上诉机制和设立常设多边上诉机制。相对于多边投资法院,常设多边上诉机制更具有正当性与可行性。常设多边上诉机制对仲裁裁决一致性、可预测性和正确性的保障依托于具体规则的建立。一方面,上诉机制的审查范围应涵盖法律适用和事实认定错误以及程序性错误,以确保全面实现上诉机制的纠错功能;另一方面,应将事实认定上的错误限于“明显错误”,以提高仲裁效率。虽然遵循先例尚未成为国际仲裁实践的一般性原则,不能要求常设多边上诉机构在仲裁裁决中遵循既往裁决以提高裁决的一致性、连贯性和可预测性,但是WTO司法实践中发展形成的事实上的遵循先例也可以被常设多边上诉机制所借鉴。

The Choice of Pathways to Establish an Appellate Mechanism of the Investment Arbitration

Current proposals submitted by states to the UNCITRAL Working Group III with respect to ISDS reform on appellate mechanisms are divided into two kinds,the Appellate Mechanism under the Multilateral Investment Court(MIC Appellate Mechanism)and the Permanent Multilateral Appellate Mechanism(PMAM).Compared with the former,the latter enjoys greater legitimacy,feasibility.The achievement of consistency,predictability,correctness of an arbitral award under the PMAM depends on the establishment of specific rules.On one hand,the scope of review under the PMAM should cover the grounds for appeal should,on the one hand,cover errors in application of laws and facts finding as well as procedural errors to ensure the full achievement of correcting function of the appellate mechanism;on the other hand,an error in facts finding should be limited to those'manifest'errors to improve the efficiency of arbitration.Although stare decisis has not become a general principle in international arbitration practice to require the Permanent Multilateral Appellate Body to follow precedents in its arbitral awards to improve the consistency,coherence and predictability of awards,a de facto stare decisis developed in the judicial practice of WTO may be drawn on by the PMAM.