شرط التزام عام ( Umbrella Clause) در معاهدات دوجانبه سرمایه گذاری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

چکیده

شرط التزام عام تقریباً به یکی از متداول ترین قواعد اکثر معاهدات سرمایه گذاری تبدیل شده
است که حمایت های افزونتری را برای سرمایه گذار خارجی فراهم میآورد. ارائه مفهومی صحیح
از این شرط، یکی از مباحث بحث برانگیز حقوق سرمایه گذاری بین المللی شده است به طور یکه
بسیاری از دیوان های داوری را نیز به موضع گیری وادار کرده است. نکته اساسی این است که آیا
این شرط به مرجع مقرر در معاهده، صلاحیت رسیدگی به اختلافات ناشی از قرارداد
سرمایه گذاری میان دولت و سرمایه گذار را میدهد؟ و اگر پاسخ مثبت است، شرط تعیین مرجع
رسیدگی به اختلاف مقرر در قرارداد چه اثری خواهد داشت؟ آیا این شرط سبب ارتقای دعاوی
قراردادی به دعاوی معاهده ای میشود؟ اثر و حدود اعمال این شرط تا کجاست؟ در پاسخ به این
سؤالات دیوان های داوری به دو شکل عمل کرده اند. عده ای از آن ها به تفسیر مضیق از این شروط
و تفکیک میان اعمال حاکمیتی و تجاری دولت میزبان پرداخته و درصورتی که عمل دولت در
نقض تعهد قراردادی اش حاکمیتی باشد، آن را سبب نقض شرط التزام دانسته و در مقابل، عده ای
دیگر شرط را در معنای موسع آن تفسیر کرده و نقض هر نوع تعهد قراردادی دولت میزبان را
به منزله نقض شرط التزام و صالح دانستن مرجع معاهدهای در رسیدگی به اختلاف دانسته اند. به نظر
میرسد تفسیر موسع و دیدگاه دوم در تفسیر شرط از منطق بیشتری برخوردار بوده و با هدف و
تاریخچه ظهور این شروط هماهنگ تر بوده و سبب کارآمد شدن آن میشود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Umbrella Clause in Bilateral Investment Treaties

نویسندگان [English]

  • hamid reza oloumi yazdi
  • somayeh mohammadi
چکیده [English]

The Umbrella Clause has nearly become one of the most common rules of the most
investment treaties, which provides more protections for foreign investor. Providing
a proper and true sense of this clause has become highly controversial issue in
international investment law that has led many arbitral tribunals to adopt specific
stance in this respect. Here, the fundamental point is whether the forum stipulated in
the bilateral investment treaty is competent to settle disputes, which are arisen from
investment contract between host State and foreign investor, or not? If it so, then the
next question would be: what will be the effect of the determining the forum by
stipulated dispute settlement clause in the contract. Does this clause turn contract
claims into the treaty claims? And what will be the impacts and limits of this clause?
Answering to these questions, the arbitral tribunals have responded in two different
ways. Some of them have interpreted the clause in a narrow sense; they have
distinguished sovereign from non-sovereign act of host State. According to their
point of view, the Umbrella Clause of BIT may be violated if the host State measure,
in breaching its contractual obligation, is applied on the basis of its sovereignty. In
contrast, the other tribunals have interpreted this clause in a broad sense which the
violation of any contractual obligation of host State leads to a breach of this clause
and consequently the forum in the investment treaty is qualified to hear the dispute.
It seems that the broad interpretation and second approach is more logical in the
interpretation of the clause; it is also more consistent with the purpose and history
of the emergence of this clause and makes it more efficient.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Umbrella Clause
  • Bilateral investment treaty
  • Investment contracts
  • Sovereign act
  • Non-sovereign act
  • ICSID Arbitral Tribunal
  • Jurisdiction competence
  • Interpretation of treaties
- Potts, Jonathan, “Stabilizing the Role of Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral
Investment Treaties: Intent, Reliance, and Internationalization” (2011) (No. 4)
Virjinia Journal of International Law, Vol. 51.
- Ethan G. Shenkman & D. Jason File, “Recent Development in Investment
Treaty Jurisprudence: Arbitrating Contract Claims under Umbrella Clauses”,
available at: www.wilmerhale.com/files/publications/9cd84cee-3ded-91a4-da
85702872/ presentationattachment/shenkmanfile2007_intlarb.pdf.
- Gautam, Pradhuman, “The Umbrella clause: A Search for Greater Legal
Certainty”, 25/08/2008, p. 12, available at: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery. cfm/
ssrn.
- Reinisch,August, “Umbrella Clauses”,(2006) ,Seminar on International
Investment Protection (OECD).
- Schill, Stephan, “ Enabling Private Ordering: Function, Scope and Effect of
Umbrella Clauses in International Investment traeties” (2009) (No.1), Minnesota
Journal of International Law, Vol.18.
- Schwebel, Stephan, “On Whether the Breach by a State of a Contract with
an Alien Is a Breach of International Law” (1987), International Law at the Time
of Its Codification.
- Shany, Yuval, “Contract Claims v. Treaty Claims: Mapping Conflicts between
ICSID Decisions on Multisourced Investment Cases” (2005), American Journal of
International Law, Vol.99.
- Shawcross, Hartley William, “The Problems of Forein Investment in
International Law” (1961) (No. 1),Recueil Des Cours, Vol. 102.
- Sinclair, Anthony C., “The Origin of Umbrella Clauses in International Law
of Investment Protection” (2004) (No. 4), Arbitration International, Vol. 20.
- Walde, Thomas, “Umbrella Clause in Investment Arbitration” (2005)
(N.183), The Journal Of Worlde Investment & Trade, V.6.
- آرای داوری
- CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/8, Decision on Annulment, available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/
icsid/frontservlet, 2011/02/12.
Consortium RFCC v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Award,
available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/frontservlet, 2011/02/12.
 
- El Paso Energy v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No, ARB/03/15, Decision
on Jurisdiction, available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/frontservlet,
2011/02/12.
- Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, Ad Hoc Investment Treaty Case, Partial
Award, available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/frontservlet ,2011/02/12.
- Fedex N.V. v. Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Award,
available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/frontservlet,2011/02/12.
- Joy Minig Machinery Limited v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Decision
on Jurisdiction, available at:http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/ frontservlet.
- LG & E Energy Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1,
Decision on Liabality, available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/
frontservlet, 2011/02/12.
- Noble Venture Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/ 01/11, Award,
available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/frontservlet,2011/02/12.
- Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentine R epublic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections, available at:
http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/ frontservlet,2011/02/12.
- Sempra Eergy nrnational v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision
on Objections to Jurisdiction, available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/
frontservlet,2011/02/12.
- SGS v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision on
Objections to Jurisdiction, available at: http:// icsid.worldbank. org/ icsid/
frontservlet,2011/02/12.
- SGS v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/06, Decision
on Objections to Jurisdiction, available at: http://icsid.worldbank.org/
icsid/ frontservlet, 2011/02/12.