论中国在ICSID被诉第一案中的仲裁管辖权问题

长期以来，中国对参与国际司法和仲裁活动持非常谨慎的态度，在对待ICSID投资仲裁的态度上也是如此，通常仅允许将与征收补偿有关的争议提交中心仲裁。然而，近年来投资者与东道国之间争议解决实践中的仲裁庭管辖权范围呈扩大趋势，中国的这种谨慎态度正逐步受到挑战。2011年5月，马来西亚伊佳兰公司向ICSID提交了第一件针对中国的案件，该案在管辖权问题上主有两个不确定之处，即（1）同意条款的范围与解释问题；（2）能否援引中国第一代BIT中的最惠国待遇条款，求获得中国第二代BIT中更广泛、更有利的程序性待遇问题。该案的启示更多在于案外，即同时作为重的资本输入和资本输出大国，中国应从侧重资本输入管制的第一代BIT和侧重投资自由化的第二代BIT，逐步发展并过渡到更为均衡的第三代BIT时代。

On the Jurisdiction Issue of the First ICSID Case against China

For a long time, China was reluctant to international adjudication and kept a very cautious attitude toward the ICSID investor-state arbitration by only allowing for disputes relating to the compensation amounts of expropriation to be submitted to an international arbitral tribunal. This attitude was challenged by a growing trend to expand the limits of jurisdiction, which has emerged from investor-state arbitration practices in recent years. A Malaysia company Ekran Berhad, broke the ice by submitting the first ICSID case against China in May 201 I. This case is subject to uncertainty with regard to two jurisdiction issues： （I） the scope of the consent clause in disputes over expropriation and （II） the application of the MFN clauses in first generation Chinese BITs that may be used as an argument by the investor to seek the broader or more favorable procedural treatment that can be found in the second generation Chinese BITs. As both an important host country and an increasingly important home country of investments, this case highlights that China need to find out a balanced choice with regard to its investment policy.