论解决投资争端国际中心国家通知的撤回  

On the Withdrawal of ICSID Notifications

作　　者：陈正健[1] Chen Zhengjian

机构地区：[1]对外经济贸易大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2019年第4期178-192,共15页Global Law Review

基　　金：作者主持的2017年度对外经济贸易大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助科研课题“一带一路倡议下ISDS研究”(17QN02)的研究成果

摘　　要：中国学界关于向解决投资争端国际中心提交的国家通知的法律意义或功能存在不同观点。随着中国经济的发展和世界环境的变化,1993年向该中心提交的中国通知的“留撤”问题日益凸显且亟待解决。意义或效果是决定中国通知“留撤”的主要依据。理论上国家通知可能构成或撤回国家同意;实践中,国家通知具有限定仲裁庭属物管辖权的作用,而对国家同意却并无撤销或限制的实际效果。中国的缔约实践抵消了中国通知对属物管辖权可能产生的限制作用;中国通知并不具有撤回和限制中国同意的效果。中国通知的撤回应注意避免在《中国土耳其双边投资条约》和《中国澳大利亚双边投资条约》中可能产生的不利效果。中国可将“有关征收与国有化导致的补偿争端”的规定分别纳入与土耳其和澳大利亚签订的“议定书”和“自由贸易协定”中以消除这些影响。There are different opinions in Chinese academia on the legal significance or function of a state’s notifications submitted to ICSID. With the development of China’s economy and changes in the international environment, the issue of "reservation or withdrawal" of notifications made by China in 1993 has become increasingly prominent and urgently needs to be resolved. The main basis for the "reservation or withdrawal" of China’s notifications are the meanings or effects of such notifications. In theory, a state’s notification may constitute or withdraw the state’s consent; in practice, a state’s notification has a limiting effect on the ratione materiae jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, but no practical effect of withdrawing or limiting the state’s consent. China’s practice of concluding IIAs has offset the possible restrictions on its notifications of ratione materiae jurisdiction and China’s notifications do not have the effect of withdrawing and restricting China’s consent. However, in withdrawing the notifications, China should avoid such adverse effects as those of "China-Turkey BIT" and "China-Australia BIT". China can eliminate these effects by incorporating the provisions of "the compensation resulting from expropriation and nationalization" into "Protocols" and "FTAs", signed with Turkey and Australia respectively.

关 键 词：《解决国家与他国国民投资争端公约》 国家通知 国家同意 国际投资 仲裁 

分 类 号：D996.4[政治法律—经济法学]