معیار سببیّت و تعیین غرامت ناشی از تخلف از شروط معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی در پرتو رویّه داوری سرمایه‌گذاری

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشگاه ازاد- علوم و تحقیقات-دانشکده حقوق

10.22066/cilamag.2022.252561

چکیده

این مقاله در صدد یافتن ضابطة جبران خسارت وارده به سرمایه‌گذار خارجی ناشی از نقض معاهدة بین‌المللی دو یا چندجانبة سرمایه‌گذاری در مواردی غیر از سلب مالکیت است. مطالعة رویة داوری به‌عنوان منبع مهم حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی نشان می‌دهد که به‌طور کلی میزان غرامت در این موارد با توجه به ضابطة جبران خسارت مندرج در رأی پروندة کارخانة کورزو و نیز موازین مربوطه در طرح مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها تعیین می‌شود. در مورد نحوة اعمال این ضابطه، اگر نقض شروط معاهده منجر به سلب مالکیت شده باشد، غرامت قابل پرداخت، همانند سلب مالکیت غیرمشروع محاسبه می‌شود. در غیر این صورت، میزان غرامت با توجه به رابطة سببیت میان رفتار متخلفانة دولت میزبان و خسارات وارده به سرمایه‌گذار تعیین می‌شود. علی­رغم انسجام نسبی آرای محاکم در مورد ضابطة تعیین میزان غرامت در این موارد، نحوة احراز رابطة سببیت در رویة داوری سرمایه‌گذاری به­شدت متشتت بوده و به پیش‌بینی­پذیری نظام داوری سرمایه‌گذاری آسیب می‌زند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Standard of Causation and Compensation for Non-Expropriatory Breaches of International Investment Agreements in the Investment Arbitration Practice

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hassan FARAJ MEHRABI 1
  • Mohsen Mohebi 2
2 Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Faculty of Law,, Tehran
چکیده [English]

This article aims to discover the standard of compensation for damages caused to foreign investors due to the non-expropriatory violations of bilateral or multilateral International Investment Agreements (IIA). A review of the investment arbitration practice as an important source of Foreign Investment Law, reveals that the amount of compensation in these cases is determined according to the standard put forward by the PCIJ in Chorzów Factory case as well as the relevant standards of the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. In cases where the violation of the IIA has amounted to expropriation, the payable compensation to the aggrieved investor would be determined in the same manner as an unlawful expropriation. In other cases, however, the assessment of compensation lies in the existence of a causal link between the wrongful act of the Host State and the damages caused to the investor. Despite the relative coherence of the arbitral tribunals’ rulings regarding the compensation standard in non-expropriatory violations in similar cases, this article concludes that the method by which the causal link is examined by arbitral tribunals remains utterly inconsistent, which can undermine the coherence and predictability of the international investment arbitration system.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Investment Law
  • Compensation
  • Non-Expropriatory Violations
  • Chorzów Factory
  • Causal Link
  • Investment Arbitration Practice
  1. منابع:

    الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب

    1. پیران، حسین؛ مسائل حقوقی سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی، گنج دانش، 1389.
    2. زایدل ـ هوهن‌فلدرن، ایگناتس؛ حقوق بین‌الملل اقتصادی، ترجمه: سیدقاسم زمانی، شهردانش، 1391.
    3. عسکری، پوریا؛ حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در رویة داوری بین‌المللی، شهر دانش، 1394.
    4. کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل؛ مسئولیت بین ­المللی دولت: متن و شرح مواد کمیسیون حقوق بین ­الملل، ترجمه: علیرضا ابراهیم‌گل، شهر دانش، 1392.
    5. محبی، محسن؛ دیوان داوری دعاوی ایران ایالات متحدة امریکا: ماهیت، ساختار، عملکرد، فردافر، 1383.
    6. محبی، محسن؛ مباحثی از حقوق نفت و گاز در پرتو رویة داوری بین‌المللی، شهر دانش، 1394.
    7. موحد، محمدعلی؛ درس‌هایی از داوری‌های نفتی: ملی­کردن و غرامت، کارنامه، 1393.
    8. نیکجاه، جواد؛ جبران خسارت در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایهگذاری، شهر دانش، 1395.

     

    ـ مقاله

    1. علیدوستی شهرکی، ناصر؛ «جبران خسارت سلب مالکیت در سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی»، فصلنامة دیدگاه‌های حقوقی دانشکدة علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، شمارة 46-47، بهار و تابستان 1388.
    2. محبی، محسن و حسن فرج‌مهرابی؛ «روش‌های ارزیابی غرامت ناشی از سلب مالکیت در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی»، ارائه­شده در همایش ملی تجلیل از مقام علمی استاد محمد جعفر جعفری لنگرودی، پاییز 1398.
    3. یزدانی، غلامرضا، محسن محبی و محمد امامی؛ «معیار محاسبة خسارت ناشی از نقض قرارداد سرمایه‌گذاری در فقه اسلامی و رویة داوری بین­المللی»، آموزه‌های فقه مدنی، شمارة 13، بهار و تابستان 1395.

     

     

     

    ب. انگلیسی و فرانسه

    - Books

    1. Bollecker-Stern, Brigitte, Le Préjudice Dans la Théorie de la Responsabilité Internationale, Pedone,
    2. Bjorklund, Andrea K., "Causation, Morality, and Quantum", Suffolk Transnational Law Review, vol. 32, No. 2, 2009.
    3. Cheng, Bin, General Principles of Law as Applied to International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge: Grotius Publications, 2006.
    4. Crawford, James, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
    5. d'Argent, Pierre, Les Réparations de Guerre en Droit International Public, L.G.D.J.,
    6. Dumberry, Patrick, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A Guide to NAFTA Case Law on Article 1105, Kluwer Law International, 2013.
    7. Hackworth, Green, Digest of International Law, Government Printing Office, 1942.
    8. Kantor, Mark, Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation Standards, Valuation Methods And Expert Evidence, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2008.
    9. Kolliopoulos, Alexandros, La Commission d’Indemnisation des Nations Unies et le Droit de la Responsabilité International, G.D.J, 2001.
    10. Lauterpacht, Hersch, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law: With Special Reference to International Arbitration, Longmans Green, 1927.
    11. Lipson, Charles, Standing Guard: Protecting Foreign Capital in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, University of California Press, 1985.
    12. Marboe, Irmgard, Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 2017.
    13. McLachlan, Campbell et al., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, Oxford University Press, 2007.
    14. Paasivirta, Esa, Participation of States in International Contracts and Arbitral Settlement of Disputes, Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, 1990.

     

    - Articles

    1. Dawson, Franck, Weston, Burns, “Prompt, Adequate and Effective: A Universal Standard of Compensation?”, Fordham Law Review, vol. 30, 1962.
    2. Dai, Tamada, “Assessing Damages in Non-Expropriation Cases Before International Investment Arbitration”, Japanese Yearbook of International Law, vol. 52, 2009.
    3. Douglas, Zachary, “Other Specific Regimes of Responsibility: Investment Treaty Arbitrations and ICSID”, In: Crawford, James et al. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford University Press, 2010.
    4. Gattini, Andrea, “Breach of the Obligation to Prevent and Reparation Thereof in the ICJ’s Genocide Judgment”, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 18, No. 4, 2007.
    5. Gill, Terry. “The ‘Genocide’ Case: Reflections on the ICJ’s Decision in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia”, The Hague Justice Journal, vol. 2, 2007.
    6. Hamer, David, “’Factual Causation’ and ‘Scope of Liability’: What’s the Difference”, Modern Law Review, 77, No. 2, 2014.
    7. Kaj, Hobér, “Fair and Equitable Treatment – Determining Compensation”, Transnational Dispute Management, 4, Issue 6, 2007.
    8. Pellet, Alain, “2013 Lalive Lecture: The Case Law of the ICJ in Investment Arbitration”, ICSID Review, vol. 28, No. 2, 2013.
    9. Plakokefalos, Ilias, “Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity”, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 26, No. 2, 2015.
    10. Ripinsky, Sergey, “Damnum Emergens and Lucrum Cessans in Investment Arbitration: Entering Through the Back Door”, In Bjorklund, Andrea et al. (eds.), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues III - Remedies in International Investment Law: Emerging Jurisprudence of International Investment Law, London, The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008.
    11. Sabahi, Borzu, “The Calculation of Damages in International Investment Law”, In: Kahn, Philippe, Wälde, Thomas (eds.), Les Aspects Nouveaux du droit des Investissements Internationaux, Nijhoff, 2007.
    12. Sabahi, Borzu & Birch, Nicholas, “Comparative Compensation for Expropriation”, In: S. Schill, Stephan (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, Oxford University Press, 2010.
    13. Shelton, Dinah, “Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 96, Issue 4, 2002.
    14. Stapleton, Jane, “Unpacking ‘Causation’”, In: Cane, Peter et al (eds.), Relating to Responsibility: Essays in Honour of Tony Honoré on His 80th Birthday, Hart Publishing, 2001.
    15. Smutny, Abby Cohen, “Some Observations on the Principles Relating to Compensation in the Investment Treaty Context”, ICSID Review -Foreign Investment Law journal, 22, Issue 1, 2007.
    16. Tomuschat, Christian, “Reparation in Cases of Genocide”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 5, Issue 4, 2007.
    17. Weiler, Todd, Miguel Diaz, Luis, “Causation and Damages in NAFTA Investor-State Arbitration”, In: Weiler, Todd (ed.), NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects, Brill – Nijhoff, 2004.

     

    - Cases

    1. 9REN Holding S.a.r.l v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15, Award, 31 May 2019.
    2. ADC Affilliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, 2 October 2006.
    3. Administrative Decision No. II, United States–Germany Mixed Claims Commission, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, VII UNRIAA, 1923.
    4. Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. V 116/2010, Award, 19 December 2013.
    5. Antoine Goetz et Consorts v. Republique du Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/95/3, Award, 10 February 1999.
    6. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2007.
    7. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo Uganda, I.C.J. Judgment, 9 February 2022.
    8. Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, Award, 27 June 1990.
    9. ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2, Award, 18 May 2010.
    10. Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006.
    11. Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Award, 28 July 2015.
    12. Bilcon of Delaware et al. v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015.
    13. Bilcon of Delaware et al. v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award on Damages, 10 January 2019.
    14. Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008.
    15. BP America Production Company and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/8, Decision on Preliminary Objections, 27 July 2006.
    16. British Caribbean Bank Limited v. The Government of Belize, PCA Case No. 2010-18, Award, 19 December 2014.
    17. Camuzzi International S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005.
    18. Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award of the Tribunal, 27 September 2017.
    19. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina , ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003.
    20. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/08, Award, 12 May 2005.
    21. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/08, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 25 September 2007.
    22. Compania de Aguas del Aconquifa S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, 20 August 2007.
    23. Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 February 2006.
    24. Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award, 4 April 2016.
    25. Egyptian Workers’ Claims, Report, Final Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners, Jurisdictional Phase, UN Doc. S/AC.26/1995/R.20/Rev/1, In: Lauterpacht, E., Greenwood, C.J., Oppenheimer, A.G. (eds.), International Law Reports, Cambridge University Press, vol. 117, 2000.
    26. Eisenbach Brothers v. Germany, United States–Germany Mixed Claims Commission, VII UNRIAA, 1925.
    27. Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, May 22, 2007.
    28. Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Decision No. 7, Guidance Regarding Jus ad Bellum Liability, 27 July 2007.
    29. Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Ethiopia Eritrea, Final Award, Ethiopia’s Damages Claims, 17 August 2009.
    30. Gami Investments Inc. v. Mexico, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 November 2004.
    31. Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A., Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case Nos. ARB(AF)/04/3 and 04/4, Award, 16 June 2010.
    32. Irene Roberts Case, United States v. Venezuela, IX UNRIAA, 1903-1905.
    33. Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010.
    34. Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Award, 28 March 2011.
    35. LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, and LG&E International Inc v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 April 2004.
    36. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006.
    37. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International Inc v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Award, 25 July 2007.
    38. Lighthouses Arbitration, France Greece), XII UNRIAA, 24/27 July 1956.
    39. Maninat Case, France Venezuela, X UNRIAA, 1902.
    40. Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF) /99/1, Award, 16 December 2002.
    41. Merrill and Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Award, 31 March 2010.
    42. Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000.
    43. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 August 2005.
    44. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua United States of America, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 1986.
    45. Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11 October 2002.
    46. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/O1/7, Award, 25 May 2004.
    47. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Annulment Proceeding, Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007.
    48. Naulilaa Case, Portugal v. Germany, 2 UNRIAA, 31 July 1928.
    49. Norwegian Shipowners’ Claims, Norway v. United States of America, Award of 13 October 1922.
    50. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, 5 October 2012.
    51. Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Part One of the First Instalment of Individual Claims for Damages above US $100,000 (Category “D” Claims), UN Doc. S/AC.26/1998/1.
    52. Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Part One of the First Instalment of Individual Claims for Damages Up to US $100,000 (Category “C” Claims), UN Doc. S/AC.26/1994/3.
    53. Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Decision on Annulment, 25 March 2010.
    54. Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award, 22 August 2016.
    55. Samoan Claims, Germany, Great Britain, United States, IX UNRIAA, 12 October 1902.
    56. D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Partial Award, 13 November 2000.
    57. D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Second Partial Award, 21 October 2002.
    58. Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005.
    59. Shufeldt,S. v. Guatemala, 11 UNRIAA, 1930.
    60. Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID case No. ARB/02/8, Award, 6 February 2007.
    61. The Factory at Chorzów, Germany Poland, Judgement, 13 September 1928, PCIJ Rep. Series A No. 17.
    62. Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003.
    63. Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004.