论国内法院在投资条约仲裁中的角色——以“印度诉沃达丰英国”案为例  

The Role of National Court in Investment Treaty Arbitration:A Case Study of India v.Vodafone

作　　者：宁红玲 漆彤[3] NING Hongling;QI Tong

机构地区：[1]贵州民族大学法学院,贵州贵阳550025 [2]澳门大学法学院,澳门999078 [3]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《国际商务研究》2020年第6期75-85,共11页International Business Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金智库专项“一带一路建设国际法问题研究”(项目编号:17VDL021).

摘　　要：投资者-国家仲裁机制产生于对发展中国家司法公正性不信任的基础上,在确保程序正义方面亦存在体制性缺陷。以条约为基础的投资者-国家仲裁自身并不属于条约范畴,而是自成一类,并受到国内法的规制。东道国国内法院拥有依据其国内法和善意之一般国际法原则禁止外国投资者滥用仲裁程序的固有管辖权,但此种管辖权应当以不威胁投资者-国家仲裁机制存在价值的方式谨慎行使。新德里高等法院对"印度诉沃达丰英国"案的判决,作为东道国国内法院协调碎片化的投资条约仲裁程序的重要实践,充分体现了国内法与国际法之间的复杂博弈关系。The emergence of investor-state arbitration was based on perceived dependence of national court of the host state.But investor-state arbitration also has its systemic deficiencies in respect of guaranteeing procedural fairness.Investment treaty arbitration is not itself a treaty,but falls in sui generis category,within the domain of domestic law.Hence,national court of the host state retains the power of restraining an abuse of the international treaty arbitration according to domestic law and good faith which is a general principle of international law.But the exercise of such power should not undermine the rationale of investor-state arbitration.Judgement of India v.Vodafone represents the conflicts and coordination of domestic law and international law,and remarkable national practice of coordinating fragmented investment treaty arbitrations.

关 键 词：国内法院 投资者-国家仲裁 滥用程序 反仲裁禁令 

分 类 号：DF964[政治法律—国际法学]