دعاوی خسارات انعکاسی در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی؛ امکان سنجی و مبانی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 کارشناسی ارشد حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدة حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

خسارات انعکاسی ناظر به ضرری است که سهام‌داران در نتیجة ورود زیان به شرکت و در قالب کاهش ارزش یا سودآوری سهام خود متحمل می­شوند. دعاوی سهام‌داران برای مطالبة این نوع خسارات در حقوق شرکت­ها ممنوع دانسته شده اما بحث­های دامنه­ داری را در عرصة داوری سرمایه­ گذاری بین­ المللی برانگیخته است: از یک سو اشخاص خارجی در بسیاری موارد، سرمایه­ گذاری خود را از طریق تملک سهام شرکت­های تشکیل­ شده در دولت میزبان سازماندهی می­کنند و از سوی دیگر، رویة داوری موجود، حاکی از آن است که چنانچه این شرکت محلی هدف اقدامات متخلفانة دولت میزبان قرار گرفته و در نتیجة آن، ارزش یا سودآوری سهام متعلق به سرمایه­ گذاران/سهام‌داران خارجی کاهش یابد، سرمایه‌گذاران می­توانند با استناد به معاهدات سرمایه ­گذاری حاکم، مستقیماً علیه دولت میزبان طرح دعوا و در صورت احراز شرایط، خسارت دریافت کنند. مقالة حاضر ضمن بررسی رویة مذکور، مبانی موجهة تجویز مطالبة این نوع خسارات را در دعاوی سرمایه­ گذاری واکاوی می­کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Reflective Loss Claims in Internationals Investment Arbitration: Feasibility and Foundations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohamad Ali Bahmaei 1
  • Mohammad-Reza Narimani 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of International Trade Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University
2 Master of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

Reflective losses concern damages resulting from losses sustained by the corporate entity which are felt by shareholders in the form of devaluation of their shares. Shareholders’ suits seeking compensation for such damages are barred under corporate law systems but have caused lengthy debates in international investment arbitration: On one hand, foreign persons often organize their investments in host States through acquisition of shares in a local company. On the other, current arbitral precedence allows foreign investors/shareholders to seek compensation for devaluation of their shares resulting from host States’ illegal measures against the local company. The present article studies the said arbitral precedence and reviews the arguments put forward by tribunals for allowing such damages to be sought in investment disputes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • reflective loss
  • foreign investment disputes
  • protection of shareholders
  • Investment Arbitration
  • ICSID
  1. الف. فارسی

    • اسکینی، ربیعا؛ حقوق تجارت؛ شرکت­های تجاری، جلد دوم، ویراست دوم، سمت، 1392.
    • پاسبان، محمدرضا؛ حقوق شرکت­های تجاری، ویراست دوم، سمت، 1394.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    • Cahn, Andreas, Donald, David C., Comparative Company Law: Text and Cases on the Laws Governing Corporations in Germany, the UK and the USA, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
    • Clodfelter, Mark; Klingler, Joseph, “Reflective Loss and Its Limits under International Investment Law”, in Beharry, Christina (ed.), Contemporary and Emerging Issues on Law of Damages and Valuation in International Investment Arbitration, 1st edition, Brill Nijhoff, 2018.
    • Dignam, Alan; Lowry, John; Company Law, 7th edition, Oxford University Press, 2012.
    • Dine, Janet, Company Law, 2nd edition, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 1999.
    • Douglas, Zachary, The International Law of Investment Claims, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
    • Dozler, Rudolf; Schreuer, Christoph; Principles of International Investment Law, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2012.
    • Girvin, Stephen, Hudson, Alastair, Frisby, Sandra, Charlesworth's Company Law, 18th edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.
    • Horn Norbert, Kroll Stefan, Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects, Kluwer Law International, 2004.
    • Lengauer, Daniel, Schaad, Martin, Amstutz, Therese, Company Law in Switzerland, Schulthess, Zurich, 2009.
    • McLaughlin, Susan, Unlocking Company Law, 2nd edition, Routledge, 2013.
    • OECD, International Investment Law: Understaning Concepts and Tracking Innvations: A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives 51 (OECD Publishing 2008).
    • Rubins, Noah, “The Notion of 'Investment' in International Investment Arbitration”, in Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004; Horn Norbert, Kroll Stefan, Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects, Kluwer Law International, 2004.
    • Sealy, Len, Worthington, Sarah, Sealy's Cases and Materials in Company Law, 9th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010.
    • Worthington, Sarah, “Shares and Shareholders: Property, Power and Entitlement: Part 1”, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001.

     

    - Articles

    • Alexandrov, Stanimir, “The Baby Boom" of Treaty-Based Arbitrations and the Jurisdiction of ICSID Tribunals: Shareholders as Investors and Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2005.
    • Asouzu, Amazu, “A Review and Critique of Arbitral Awards on Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2002.
    • Bentolila, Dolores, “Shareholders’ Action to Claim for Indirect Damages in ICSID Arbitration”, Trade Law and Development, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.
    • Bottini, Gabriel, “Indirect Claims under the ICSID Convention”, Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2008.
    • Buckle, Paul, “The Rule against Reflective Loss, Trusts and Freeman v Ansbacher in Jersey”, Trusts &Trustees, Vol. 16, No. 9, 2010.
    • Burgstaller, Markus, “Nationality of Corporate Investors and International Claims against the Investor’s Own State”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 7, Issue 6, 2006.
    • Chaisse, Julien, “Shareholder Protection Reloaded – The Matrix of Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss”, Stanford Journal of International Law, Vol. 52, Issue 1, 2016.
    • Gaukrodger, David, “Investment Treaties and Shareholder Claims; Analysis of Treaty Practice”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2014/03, OECD Publishing, 2014.
    • Gaukrodger, David, “Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency. A Preliminary Framework for Policy Analysis”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, No. 2013/3, OECD Investment Division, 2013.
    • Schreuer, Christoph H., “Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law”, Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) Journal, Vol. 3, 2005.
    • Valasek, Martin J., Dumberry, Patrick, “Developments in the Legal Standing of Shareholders and Holding Corporations in Investor-State Disputes”, ICSID Review, Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2011.

     

     

    - Dissertation

    • Vanhonnaeker, Lukas, Shareholders’ Claims for Reflective Loss in International Investment Arbitration – The Rule and Its Demystification, Doctoral Thesis, McGill University, April 2018.

     

    - Cases

    1. Arbitral Awards
    • ADC Affiliate Limited, ADC & Management Limited v Republic of Hungary (Award, 2 October 2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16.
    • American Manufacturing and Trading, Inc. v Republic of Zaire (Award, 21 February 1997) ICSID Case No. ARB/ 93/1, 5 ICSID Rep 14.
    • Antoine Goetz and Others v Republic of Burundi (Award, 10 February 1999) ICSID Case No. ARB/95/3, 6 ICSID Rep 5.
    • Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Award, 27 June 1990) ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, 4 ICSID Rep 250.
    • Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (Award, 14 July 2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12.
    • Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (Decision on Application for Annulment, 1 November 2009), ICSID Case No. ARB/ 01/12.
    • Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003), ICSID Case No. ARB/ 01/12, 10 ICSID Rep 416.
    • BG Group v Argentine Republic (Final Award, 24 December 2007) UNCITRAL.
    • Camuzzi International S.A. v Argentine Republic (Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2.
    • Champion Trading Company, Ameritrade International Inc., J.T., J.B. and T.T. Wahba v Arab Republic of Egypt (Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2003) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9, 10 ICSID Rep 398.
    • CME Czech Republic BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic (Final Award on Damages, 14 March 2003) UNCITRAL, 9 ICSID Rep 264.
    • CME Czech Republic BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic (Partial Award on the Merits, 13 September 2001) UNCITRAL, 9 ICSID Rep 121.
    • CMS Gas Transmission Company v Republic of Argentina (Award, 12 May 2005) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8.
    • CMS Gas Transmission Company v Republic of Argentina (Decision on Annulment, 25 September 2007) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8.
    • CMS Gas Transmission Company v Republic of Argentina (Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8,7 ICSID Rep 494.
    • Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux/Vivendi Universal v Argentine Republic (Decision on Annulment, 3 July 2002) ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, 6 ICSID Rep 340.
    • Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux/Vivendi Universal v Argentine Republic (Decision on Annulment, 3 July 2002) ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, 6 ICSID Rep 340.
    • Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux/Vivendi Universal v Argentine Republic (Award, 21 November 2000) ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, 5 ICSID Rep 299.
    • Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux/Vivendi Universal v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005) ICSID Case No. ARB/ 97/3.
    • Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 February 2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9.
    • 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.
    • Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentine Republic (Award, 22 May 2007) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3.
    • Franz Sedelmayer v Russian Federation (Award, 7 July 1998) SCC.
    • GAMI Inc. v United States of Mexico (Final Award, 15 November 2004) UNCITRAL.
    • Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v The Argentine Republic (Decision of the Tribunal on Preliminary Questions on Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10.
    • Lanco International Inc. v Argentine Republic (Preliminary Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 1998) ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6, 5 ICSID Rep. 367.
    • LESI (Lavori Edili Stradali Industriali) Spa, Astaldi Spa v Republic of Algerienne Demcratique et Populaire (Award, 12 July 2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3.
    • LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v Argentine Republic (Award, 25 July 2007) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, 21 ICSID Rep 203.
    • LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v Argentine Republic (Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 30 April 2004) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, 11 ICSID Rep 414.
    • Patrick Mitchell v Democratic Republic of Congo (Decision on the Stay of Enforcement of the Award of 30 November 2004) ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7.
    • Phoenix Action Ltd. v. Czech Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5) Award of April 15, 2009.
    • Ronald S. Lauder v Czech Republic (Final Award, 3 September 2001) UNCITRAL, 9 ICSID Rep 66.
    • Salini Costrutorri SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco (Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001) ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, 6 ICSID Rep 400.
    • Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic (Partial Award, 17 March 2006) UNCITRAL/PCA.
    • SAUR International S.A. v. Argentine Republic, (Annulment Proceeding, 19 December 2016), ICSID Case n° ARB/04/4.
    • Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic (Award, 28 September 2007) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16.
    • Siemens AG v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, 12 ICSID Rep 174.
    • Siemens AG v Argentine Republic Award and Separate Opinion, 6 February 2007) ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8.
    • Telefónica S.A. v Argentine Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 May 2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/20.
    • Total SA v Argentine Republic (Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 25 August 2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01.
    • 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.

     

    1. International Judgements
    • Agrotexim and others v Greece, 21 EHRR 250, 1996.
    • Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgement of 24 May 2007.
    • Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (Preliminary objections: 1970).
    • Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989.
    • Tadeusz Olczak v Poland, Application no. 30417/96, Final decision, 2002.

     

    1. National Judgments
    • Prudential Assurance v Newman (1982) 1 Ch 204.

     

    - Reports and Guidelines

    • Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1995-2006, Trends in Investment Rulemaking, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York and Geneva, 2007.

    - Miscellaneous