بررسی رویکرد دیوان‌های داوری ایکسید به دفاع ضرورت و شرط استثنا: تأملی بر پرونده‌های گازی آرژانتین

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

در اواخر دهۀ نود و اوایل قرن بیست و یکم میلادی، کشور آرژانتین با بحران اقتصادی و اجتماعی شدیدی روبه‌رو شد و دولت این کشور برای مقابله با آن، به اقدامات مختلفی دست زد. از آنجا که این اقدامات به شکل‌گیری دعاوی متعددی توسط سرمایه‌گذاران علیه آن دولت در داوری‌های مختلف، از جمله داوری تحت قواعد مرکز حل و فصل اختلافات ناشی از سرمایه‌گذاری (ایکسید) انجامید، دیوان‌هایی که به دعاوی مطرح‌شده علیه آرژانتین رسیدگی کردند، با وجود حقایق یکسان و دفاع - تقریباً- مشابه آن کشور، گاهی آرای متناقضی صادر کردند. مهم‌ترین اختلافات دیوان‌های داوری مربوط به تفسیر و تطبیق دفاع ضرورت توسط دولت آرژانتین و استناد این دولت به شرط استثنا مندرج در برخی معاهدات دوجانبۀ سرمایه‌گذاری، به عنوان عامل توجیه‌کنندۀ اقدامات خود بود. با توجه به اهمیت موضوع و امکان وقوع موارد مشابه، در این نوشتار آرای مذکور در پرتو دفاع ضرورت و شرط استثنا بررسی و در پایان مشخص شد که تلفیق دفاع ضرورت و شرط استثنا، مهم‌ترین عامل به وجود آورندۀ اختلاف در پرونده‌های مذکور بوده و این امر ناشی از بی‌توجهی به تمایز و آثار مجزای هریک از این دو مفهوم بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Examination of the Approach of ICSID Arbitration Tribunals to Necessity Defense and Exception Clause: Contemplating on Argentine Gas Cases

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdi Piri 1
  • Mohammadreza Shakib 2
  • Bahareh Ahmadpour 2
1 Assistant Prof, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. Student In International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In the late 90s and the early 21st century, Argentina faced a severe economic and social crisis, and to deal with it, the government took various measures. These actions have led to the formation of various claims by investors against that State in several arbitrations, including arbitration under the rules of the Investment Dispute Resolution Center (ICSID), hence tribunals that have considered the claims brought against Argentina, sometimes issued contradictory award, despite same facts and (almost) similar defenses of the country. The most important disagreements between the arbitration tribunals concerned with interpretation and implementation of the necessity defense by the Argentine government and its invocation to exception clause contained in some bilateral investment treaties as an excuse for its actions. Considering the importance of the issue and the possibility of occurrence of similar cases, in this paper, we considered the relevant awards in the light of necessity defense and exception clause. Finally it became clear that the mixing of necessity defense and exception clause was the most important factor causing differences in the above-mentioned cases and this was due to the lack of attention to the distinction of these two concepts and distinct effects of either of them.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • ICSID investment arbitration
  • Necessity defense
  • Exception clauses
  • Argentine economic crisis
  • Investment arbitration tribunals

مراجع

الف) فارسی
1. شکیب، محمدرضا (1397). دفاع ضرورت در رویۀ داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی: چالش‌های پیش رو. چاپ اول، تهران، انتشارات خرسندی.
ب) انگلیسی
Books
2. International Law Commission, (2001), Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II (Part Two).
3. Miles, Kate, (2013), The Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
4. Sornaragah, M., (2004), the international law on foreign investment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
5. Sornarajah, M., (2015), Resistance and Change in the International law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Articles
6. Stone Sweet, Alec and Giacinto Della Cananea, (2013-2014), "Proportionality, General principles of law, and Investor-State Arbitration: a Response to Jose Alvarez", N. Y. U. J. Int'l L. & Pol, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 911-954.
7. Charles N. Brower, Charles H. Brower II & Jeremy K. Sharpe, (2003), "The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudication System", 19 ARB. INT'L 415, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 415–440.
8. Viñuales, Jorge E., (2008), "State of Necessity and Peremptory Norms in International Investment Law", 14 LAW & BUS. REV. AM, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 79-103.
9. Alvarez, José E. & Kathryn Khamsi, (2009), "The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime", 2008/2009 Y.B. INT’L INV. L. & POL’Y, 379, pp. 379-478.
10. Sauvant, Karl P., (2008), "The Rise of International Investment, Investment Agreements and Investment Disputes, in Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes", (Karl P. Sauvant & Michael Chiswick-Patterson eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 3-16.
11. Harhay, Leah D., (2011), "investment arbitration in 2021: A look to diversity and consistency", Sw. J. Int'l L, Vol. 18, pp. 223, 244.
12. Trakman, Leon E., (2013), "The ICSID and Investor–State Arbitration", IN: (Leon E Trakman and Nicola W. Ranieri, Regionalism in International Investment Law), Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 252-313.
13. McLachlan, Campbell, (2008), "Investment Treaties and general international law", International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 57, pp. 361-401.
14. Subramanian, S. R., (2012), "Too Similar or Too Different: State of Necessity as a Defence under Customary International Law and the Bilateral Investment Treaty and their Relationship", Manchester Journal of International Economic Law Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 68-91.
15. Schill, S.W, (2007), "International Investment law and the Host State’s Power to Handle Economic Crisis", Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 24 (3), pp. 265-286.
16. Gazzini, Tarcisio, (2008), "Necessity in International Investment Law: Some Critical Remarks on CMS v Argentina", 26 J.Energy Nat. Resources L.450, Maastricht University Library, pp. 450-469.
17. Burke-White, William W. & Andreas von Staden, (2008), "Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties", Virginia Journal of International Law Vol 48, pp. 309-410.
Jurisprudence
18. ADC and ADC & ADMC v Hungary, ICSID/ARB/03/16, Award, (2 October 2006).
19. Argentina’s Collapse: A Decline Without Parallel, ECONOMIST, Mar. 2–8, 2002, at 26.
20. Case concerning Gabcıkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), I.C.J. Rep (Judgment of 25 September 1997).
21. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. USA, (Merits), I.C.J. Rep (Judgment of 27 June 1986).
22. CMS Gas Transmission Company V. Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceeding, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, (September 25, 2007).
23. CMS Gas Transmission Company V. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, (May 12, 2005).
24. Continental Casualty Company V. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, (Sep. 5, 2008).
25. Continental Casualty Company V. The Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceeding, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, (September 16, 2011).
26. EL Paso Energy International Company v. the Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, (31 October 2011).
27. EL Paso Energy International Company v. the Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceeding, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, (September 22, 2014).
28. Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. The Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceeding, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, (30 July 2010).
29. Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. V. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, (May 22, 2007).
30. LG&E Energy Corp. V. Argentine Republic, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, (Oct. 3, 2006).
31. Sempra Energy Int’l V. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, (Sept. 28, 2007).
32. Sempra Energy International V. Argentine Republic, Annulment Proceeding, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, (29 June 2010).
Others
33. Australia – India BIT (New Delhi, 26 February 1999).
34. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965).
35. Croatia - India BIT, Date of signature, (04/05/2001).
36. Finland - Kyrgyzstan BIT (2003), Date of signature, 03/04/2003.
37. Guillermo Nielsen, (2003), Certificate Concerning the State of Necessity in Argentina, Secretary of Finance of Argentina.
38. Hong Kong, China SAR - New Zealand BIT, Date of signature: 06/07/1995.
39. Japan-Korea BIT, Signed at Seoul March 22, 2002.
40. Japan-Viet Nam BIT, Tokyo, November 14, 2003.
41. Treaty Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment, U.S.– A.R.G, Nov. 14, 1991. (U.S- Argentina BIT).
42. U.N. Conference on Int’l Trade & Dev. [UNCTAD], Bilateral Investment Treaties 1959–1999, at 26–27, U.N. Doc. UNCTAD/ITE/IIA/2 (Dec. 2000).
مطالعات حقوق انرژی
دوره 4، شماره 2
پاییز و زمستان
مهر 1397
صفحه 377-403

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار