欧盟投资法庭裁决的执行路径研究  

Study on the Enforcement Routes of the Investment Court Award of European Union

作　　者：桑远棵 Sang Yuanke

机构地区：[1]浙江工商大学法学院

出　　处：《国际经济法学刊》2023年第1期112-123,共12页Journal of International Economic Law

基　　金：浙江工商大学科研经费项目“投资者与国家争端解决机制变革与中国的应对研究”(课题项目号1100XJ2321076)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：近年来,欧盟在与加拿大、越南等国家签订的贸易与投资协定中引入了新型投资者与国家争议解决机制——投资法庭机制。欧盟为投资法庭裁决设置了双重执行路径,但实际上都无法充分保证投资法庭裁决在全球范围的自由流动。一方面,尽管根据《维也纳条约法公约》第41条投资法庭机制可以被认定为部分缔约国对1965年《华盛顿公约》的对内修改,但对协定以外的第三国不具有约束力。另一方面,投资法庭机制与1958年《纽约公约》具有一定程度的协调性,尤其是其组成事项符合《纽约公约》下“仲裁裁决”“书面仲裁协议”“商事争议”的内涵,但在协定以外的第三国能否获得执行存在很大的不确定性。未来如果中国在中欧全面投资协定中接受投资法庭机制,应致力于构建有效的投资法庭裁决执行路径。In recent years,European Union(EU)has incorporated a wholly new investor-state dispute settlement mechanism—investment court system—into the trade and investment agreements concluded with Canada,Vietnam and other countries.EU has devised dual enforcement paths for the investment court award,but as a matter of fact,both of them can’t sufficiently guarantee the free circulation of investment court award in the globe.On one hand,although in light of Article 41 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty,the investment court system can be deemed as an inter se modification of the 1965 Washington Convention by certain contracting states,but it is not binding on the third country outside the Agreement.On the other hand,investment court system is,to some extent,more compatible with the 1958 New York Convention,in particular that its relevant component issues are consistent with requirements of the“arbitral awards”,“arbitration agreement in writing”,“commercial dispute”within the New York Convention,but whether the investment court award can be enforced in the third country outside the Agreement is uncertain.In the future,if China accepts the investment court system in the China-EU Comprehensive Investment Agreement,it should seek to establish an effective enforcement mechanism of investment court award.

关 键 词：投资法庭机制 投资法庭裁决 《华盛顿公约》 《纽约公约》 

分 类 号：D997.4[政治法律—国际法学]