国际投资条约中“法律上不成立之诉请”条款探析  

An Analysis of the “Claims Unfounded as a Matter of Law” Objection in IIAs

作　　者：肖军[1] XIAO Jun(School of Law Wuhan University,Hubei 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院国际法研究所,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《上海对外经贸大学学报》2019年第1期85-96,共12页Journal of Shanghai University of International Business and Economics

基　　金：国家社科基金重大项目"外商投资负面清单管理模式与中国外资法律制度重构研究"(14ZDC033);司法部国家法治与法学理论研究课题"国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查问题研究"(18SFB2055)资助

摘　　要：晚近欧美投资条约规定了"法律上不成立之诉请"异议,意在遏制投资者提出的"轻浮之诉"。它源自美国BIT范本,但已有条约对该异议的规定较为简略,仲裁实践极少。仅有的Pac Rim案裁决的解释赋予仲裁庭很大自由裁量权。一些欧美投资条约同时还规定了"明显缺乏法律依据之诉请"异议。但两个异议程序的适用范围、审查标准实质相同。由于两者具有显著的同质性,同一条约规定两个程序实际上并无必要。至少,这些条约应该明确协调两个程序之间的关系。我国在中美和中欧BIT谈判中将直接面对这一问题,应妥善处理。The "claims unfounded as a matter of law" objection was first introduced by the US Model BIT in order to prevent frivolous claims. Most of recent international investment agreements concluded by the US and the EU, such as CETA, have provided for this objection procedure. Existing treaty rules on the objection are simple. Pac Rim case is the only one so far where the tribunal dealt with the objection. According to the Pac Rim decision, the tribunal has almost unlimited discrection under this procedure. In addition to the "claims unfounded as a matter of law" objection, CETA and some other investment agreements have stipulated the "claims manifestly without legal merit" objection simultaneously. But there is a substantial overlap between two objections, so that it is unnecessary to provide them in the same agreement. If an agreement does include two objections, their relationship should be explicitly clarified. China should carefully deal with this issue in its BIT negotiations.

关 键 词：国际投资条约 投资仲裁 轻浮之诉 异议程序 法律上不成立之诉请 

分 类 号：D996.1[政治法律—经济法学]