تعارض آرا در داوری سرمایه گذاری بین المللی؛ گونه شناسی، عوامل و راهکارها

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 کارشناسی ارشد حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی

چکیده

 امروزه داوری بی­ تردید پرکاربردترین شیوة حل‌و‌فصل اختلافات سرمایه­ گذاری بین­ المللی است. به باور بسیاری از ناظران، افزایش چشمگیر رجوع به داوری در حوزة سرمایه­ گذاری خارجی را باید در مزیت نسبی این شیوه از لحاظ پیش ­بینی­ پذیری و اعتماد بازیگران بین ­المللی به آن جستجو کرد. در این میان، پدیدة تعارض آرا از موانع مهمی است که می­تواند ویژگی­های مذکور را به حاشیه رانده، و بخصوص از پیش‌بینی‌پذیری فرایند داوری بکاهد. مقالة حاضر می­کوشد ضمن بررسی رویة داوری سرمایه­گذاری، انواع تعارض آرا، علل آن و راهکارهای جلوگیری از صدور آرای متعارض را بررسی کند. نتایج پژوهش حاضر حاکی از آن است که نخست، وجود میزانی از عدم انسجام و هماهنگی در عناصر مختلف نظام حل‌و‌فصل اختلافات اجتناب­ ناپذیر است و از همین رو نمی­توان تعارض آرا را به‌طور کامل از عرصة داوری سرمایه­ گذاری بین­ المللی زدود. دوم، پیشگیری از بروز هریک از انواع تعارض، نیازمند راهکاری ویژه است و نمی­توان سازوکار واحد و جامعی برای ازمیان ­بردن کلیة عوامل بروز تعارض به دست داد. سرانجام، به نظر می­رسد مقابلة همه ­جانبه با پدیدة تعارض آرا بدون اصلاح معاهدات بین ­المللی مربوط به حوزة داوری سرمایه­ گذاری امکان ­پذیر نیست.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Conflicting Decisions in International Investment Arbitration: Typology, Origins and Solutions

نویسندگان [English]

  • Goodarz Eftekhar Jahromi 1
  • Mohammad-Reza Narimani 2
1 Professor in faculty of law, University of Shahid Beheshti
2 Master of Laws in Private Law, Shahid Beheshti University Faculty of Law
چکیده [English]

Arbitration has in recent times been considered as the most useful mechanism for settling international investment disputes. The significant increase in referring to arbitration, according to many commentators, must be sought in arbitration’s comparative advantages in terms of predictability and the trust of its international users. Conflicting decisions are among important setbacks to these advantages, and in particular, the issue of predictability in arbitration. Through an in-depth analysis of relevant arbitral precedent, this paper seeks to suggest a typology of conflicting decisions, and to explain potential solutions available for addressing its causes. It is concluded that, first, a degree of inconsistency is an integral part of any dispute settlement system, and therefore, it may not be fully eliminated from arbitration. Second, each type of conflict requires a unique solution, and accordingly, there is no single mechanism to address all types of conflicting decisions. Finally, inconsistency might not be eliminated unless a number of revisions are made to international treaties relevant to investment arbitration.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conflicting Decisions
  • International Investment Arbitration
  • Shareholders’ Claims
  • Doctrine of Necessity
  • Fork-in-the-Road Clause
  • Consolidation of Proceedings
  • English / French

    - Books

    • Dolzer R., Schreuer C., Principles of International Investment Law, Second ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
    • Douglas Z., The International Law of Investment Claims, second edition, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
    • Gaillard E., and Savage J., (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
    • Schreuer C. et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

     

    - Articles

    • Alvarez J. and Khamsi K. “The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Hear of the Investment Regime” in Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy (2008/2009).
    • Brower C., Sharpe J., “Multiple and Conflicting International Arbitral Awards”, The Journal of World Investment, Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2003.
    • Buergenthal T., “The Proliferation of Disputes, Dispute Settlement Procedures and Respect for the Rule of Law”, Arbitration International, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2014.
    • Burke-White W., and Von Staden A., “Private Litigation in a Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, 2010.
    • Commission J., “Precedents in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Citation Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence” Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2007.
    • Cremades B., and Madalena I., “Parallel Proceedings in International Arbitration”, Arbitration International, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2008.
    • Crivellaro A., “Consolidation of Arbitral and Court Proceedings in Investment Disputes”, Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 4, 2005.
    • Dodge W., “National Courts and International Arbitration: Exhaustion of Remedies and Resudicata under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 23, 2000.
    • Duprey P. “Do Arbitral Awards Constitute Precedents? Should Commercial Arbitration be Distinguished in this regard from Arbitration Based on Investment Treaties?” in E. Gaillard (ed.), Towards a Uniform International Arbitration Law? 2005.
    • Kingsbury B., and Schill S., “Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law”, in 50 Years of the New York Convention: ICCA International Arbitration Conference 5, 8 n.7 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., 2009).
    • Foster D. “Necessity Knows No Law!’: LG&E v. Argentina”, International Arbitration Law Review, Vol. 9, Issue 6, 2006.
    • Fouret J. “CMS c/ LG&E ou l’état de nécessité en question”, Revue de l’arbitrage, No. 2, 2007.
    • Gallagher N., Parallel Proceedings, Res Judicata and Lis Pendens: Problems and Possible Solutions, in L.A. Mistelis, J.D.M. Lew (eds.), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration, Kluwer, The Hague, 2006.
    • Gaukrodger D., “Investment Treaties and Shareholder Claims: Analysis of Treaty Practice”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, No. 2014/03, 2014.
    • Gaukrodger D., “Investment Treaties as Croporate Law: Shareholders’ Claims and Issues of Consistency”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, No. 2013/3, 2013.
    • Günes S., “Res Judicata in International Arbitration: To What Extent Does an Arbitral Award Prevent the Re-Litigation of Issues?”, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 12, Issue 6, 2015.
    • Hanotiau B., L’autorité de chose jugée des sentences arbitrales, L’arbitrage complexe, Special Supplement Bull. CIArb. ICC 45 (2003).
    • Hansen R., “Parallel Proceedings in Investor-State Treaty Arbitration: Responses for Treaty Drafters, Arbitrators and Parties”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 73, Issue 4, 2010.
    • Kaufmann-Kohler, G. “Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse?”, Arbitration International, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2007.
    • Kaufmann-Kohler G. “Is Consistency a Myth” in Gaillard E. and Banifatemi Y. (Eds.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 5, Precedent in International Arbitration, Paris: Juris Publishing Inc. 2007.
    • Kaufmann-Kohler G., et al., “Consolidation of Proceedings in Investment Arbitration: How Can Multiple Proceedings Arising from the Same or Related Situations Be Handled Efficiently?” ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006.
    • Kim D., “The Annulment Committee’s Role in Multiplying Inconsistencies in ICSID Arbitration: The Need to Move Away from an Annulment-Based System”, New York University Law Review, Vol. 86, 2011.
    • Kuhn W., “How to Avoid Conflicting Awaeds – The Lauder and CME Cases”, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2004.
    • Martinez-Fraga P., and Jack Samra H., “The Role of Precedent in Defining Res Judicata in Investor–State Arbitration”, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 32, Issue 3, 2012.
    • Mayer, P. “Conflicting Decisions in International Commercial Arbitration”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013.
    • Reinisch A, “Necessity in International Investment Arbitration: An Unnecessary Split of Opinions in Recent ICSID Cases?”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2007.
    • Rubins N., “Observations, Judgment by the Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm, Rendered in 2003 in Case T8735-01: The CME v. Czech Republic Case”, Stockholm Arb. Rep. No. 2, 2003.
    • Sheppard A., “The Scope and Res Judicata Effect of Arbitral Awards” in Arbitral Procedure at the Dawn of the New Millennium (Reports of the International Colloquium of CEPANI, Bruylant, 2005.
    • Schneiderman D., “Judicial Politics and International Investment Arbitration: Seeking an Explanation for Conflicting Outcomes”, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 30, 2010.
    • Schreuer C. and Weiniger M., “Conversation across Cases: Is there a Doctrine of Precedent in Investment Arbitration?” in MacLachlan C., Shore L., Weiniger M. and Mistelis L. (eds.), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles Investment Treaty Law, 2007.
    • Schreuer C., “Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law”, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2005.
    • Soderlund C., “Lis Pendens, Res Judicata and the Issue of Parallel Judicial Proceedings”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2005.
    • Spoorenberg, F. Viñuales, J., “Conflicting Decisions in International Arbitration”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 8, 2009.
    • Ten Cate I. “The Costs of Consistency: Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 51, 2013.
    • Valasek M. and Dumberry P., “Developments in the Legal Standing of Shareholders and Holding Corporations in Investor-State Disputes” ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 2011.
    • Wallace E., “Consolidated Arbitration in the U.S; Recent Authority Requires Consent of the Parties”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 3, Issue 5, 1993.
    • Yaffe N., “Transnational Arbitral Res Judicata”, Journal of International Arbitration, No. 5, 2017.

     

    - Judgements and Awards

    • Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v. Adelheid Krieg, Court of Justice of the European Union, 4 February 1988, Case No. 145/86.
    • CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/08 (United States/Argentina BIT), Award of 12 May 2005, Annulment Decision of 25 September 2007.
    • LG&E v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1 (United States/Argentina BIT), Decision on liability of 3 October 2006, Damages Award of 25 July 2007.
    • In the Matter of an UNCITRAL Arbitration between Ronald S. Lauder v. the Czech Republic, Final Award of 3 September 2001.
    • CME Czech Republic B. V (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, Partial Award of 13 September 2001 (UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings).
    • Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, 11 ICSID Rep 273.
    • Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003), ICSID Case No. ARB/ 01/12, 10 ICSID Rep 416.
    • El Paso Energy International Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006.
    • Czech Republic v. CME Czech Republic BV, Svea Court of Appeal, Case No. T8735-01, Decision of 15 May 2003.
    • Siemens AG v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, 12 ICSID Rep 174.
    • Feldman (Marvin) v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/1 (NAFTA), Award of 16 December 2002.
    • Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v. Colon Container Terminal S.A., DSFSC 127 (2001) III at 279.
    • Maffezini v Spain (Preliminary Objections) 5 ICSID Rep 396, 410/63.
    • Waste Management, Inc. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2, 2 June 2000.
    • Waste Management Inc. v United Mexican States (No. 2) (Decision on Preliminary Objection, 26 June 2002) ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/ 00/3, 6 ICSID Rep 549.
    • Order of the Consolidation Tribunal, Sept. 7, 2005, granting the consolidation of the cases Canfor Corporation v. United States of America, Tembec et al. v. United States of America and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States of America).