نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 استادیار حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری به سبب ماهیت نامتقارن خود که از تفاوت اساسی موجود میان طرفین دعوی یعنی خواهان به عنوان یک سرمایه‌گذار خصوصی و خوانده به عنوان دولت میزبان سرمایه ناشی می‌شود، چالش‌هایی با خود به همراه دارند. طرف سرمایه‌گذار در کسوت خواهان، علیه دولت میزبان طرح دعوی می‌کند اما در مقابل، دعاوی تقابلی که دولت‌ها برای تغییر روند جاری در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری (که در آن، محکوم نهایی معمولا دولت است) مطرح می‌نمایند، با چالش‌های اساسی مواجه می‌شوند که ناشی از عدم پیش‌بینی امکان طرح دعوی تقابل برای دولت و نیز عدم امکان اعمال تعهدات ذیل حقوق بین‌الملل بر سرمایه‌گذار می‌باشد. این خلأها درکنار امکان نقض موازین حقوق بشر از جانب سرمایه‌گذار، در نهایت منجر به عدم جبران حقوق تضییع شده طرف ثالث یعنی قربانی مستقیم نقض حقوق بشر در این روند می‌شود. دعوی اورباسر و سی.ای.بی.بی علیه آرژانتین از جمله دعاوی دولت- سرمایه‌گذار است که دیوان داوری ایکسید برای نخستین بار دعوی تقابل دولت میزبان بر مبنای نقض حقوق بشر را می‌پذیرد و آن را به تفصیل مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار می‌دهد؛ هرچند که سرانجام دولت در اثبات ادعای خود باز مانده و دعوی تقابل در ماهیت رد می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

UUrbaser v Argentina: The Origins of Host State Human Rights Counterclaim in ICSID Arbitration

نویسندگان [English]

  • zahra hajipour 1
  • POURIA askary 2

1 Candidate of PHD in international law at Allame Tabataba'i University

2 Assistant Professor at Allameh Tabatabai university

چکیده [English]

Investment arbitrations have their own challenges due to their asymmetric nature, which arise from the essential difference between the parties to the claim. The investor on the basis of the investment agreement can bring a claim against the host State, but on the contrary, the counterclaim by States for changing the current process of investment arbitration, in which the ultimate conviction is usually for the State, faces with a number of fundamental challenges. This is due to the non-anticipation of the possibility of counterclaim by States and the difficulty of imposing the obligations of international law on investors. These gaps along with the possibility of violation of human rights by the investor, ultimately, lead to non-compensation of third-parties, who are in many cases the direct victims of human rights abuse in this process.  Urbaser  v. the Argentina is the first ICSID case which the ICSID arbitration tribunal accepts a counterclaim of a State based on human rights violations and puts it into detail analysis; although finally the State remained unable to prove its claim, and the counterclaim had been rejected in merits.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • counterclaims in investment arbitrations
  • Corporate Social responsibility
  • corporate obligations under international law
  • Right to Water
  • ICSID
الف- فارسی
 کتا‌ب‌
- عسکری، پوریا، حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در رویه داوری بین‌المللی، چاپ سوم (تهران: شهر دانش، 1394).
 
 مقاله‌ها
- ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله، سلطان‌زاده، سجاد، «مفهوم سرمایه‌گذاری در رویه داوری مرکز حل‌وفصل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی (ایکسید)»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 50، (1393).
- بروشه، آرون، «قانون حاکم و اجرای احکام در داوری‌های موضوع کنوانسیون حل‌وفصل اختلافات ناشی از سرمایه‌گذاری بین دولت‌ها و اتباع دول دیگر»، ترجمه محسن محبی، مجله حقوقی، ش 10، (1986).
- فیروزی مندمی، فراز، «جایگاه تعهدات حقوق بین‌الملل بشر در معاهدات دوجانبه سرمایه‌گذاری»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، شماره 51، (1395).
 
ب- انگلیسی
Books
- Aust, Anthony, Handbook of International Law, 2nd ed (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
 - Fortin, Katharine, The Accountability of Armed Groups Under Human Rights Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).
 - ICSID, ICSID Reports, Volume 1 (Cambridge: Grotius, 1993).
- Joubin-Bret, Anna & Kalicki, Jean E, Reshaping the Investor-state Dispute Settlement System: journeys for the 21st century (Leiden; Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2015).
 - Schreuer, Christoph, et al, The ICSID convention: A commentary: A Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press, 2009).
 - UNCTAD, Selected Recent Developments in IIA Arbitration and Human Rights (New York: United Nation, 2009), available at: http:// unctad. org/ en/Docs/webdiaeia20097_en.pdf, last visit: 2019/3/30.
 - United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations 1956 (New York: Columbia University Press/United Nations Publications, 1956).
 - World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Corporate Social Responsibility the WBCSD’s Journey,Conches-Geneva (Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2009).
 
Articles
- Alvarez, José E., “Are Corporations ‘Subjects’ of International Law?”, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Volume 9, Issue, 1, (2011).
 - Caroline Richard and Elliot Luke, “Human Rights in International Investment Law: Where to After Urbaser?”, available at: http://humanrights.freshfields.com/post/102enaj/human-rights-in-international-investment-law-where-to-after-urbaser, last visit: 2019/3/30, (2017).
 - Gleick, Peter H., “The Human Right to Water”, Water Policy, No. 1, (1999).
 - Ilias, Bantekas, “Corporate Social Responsibility in International Law”, Boston University, Vol. 22, (2004).
 - Kalicki, Jean. E., “Counterclaims by States in Investment Arbitration”, available at: https://www.iisd.org/itn/2013/01/14/counterclaims-by-states-in-investment-arbitration-2/, last visit: 2019/3/30, (2013).
 - Lalive, Pierre & Halonen, Laurs, “On the Availability of Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, Czech Yearbook of International Law, Vol. II, (2011).
- Leathley, Christian & Barber, Louise, “Urbaser V. Argentina and Burlington V. Ecuador: Investment Arbitration Is Not over the Counterclaims yet”, available at: https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2017/03/14/urbaser-v-argentina-and-burlington-v-ecuador-investment-arbitration-is-not-over-the-counterclaims-yet/, last visit: 2019/3/30, (2017).
 - Murthy, Sharmila L., “The Human Right (s) to Water and Sanitation: History, Meaning, and the Controversy Over Privatization”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, Issue 1, (2013).
 - Sur, Sujoy, “Urbaser v. Argentina: Analysing the Expanding Scope of Investment Arbitration in light of Human Rights Obligations”, available at: https://efilablog.org/2017/05/02/urbaser-v-argentina-analysing- theexpanding- scope- of- investment- arbitration-in-light-of-human-rights-obligations/, last visit: 2019/3/30, (2017).
 - United Nations, “CSR and Developing Countries- What Scope for Government Action?”, Sustainable Development Innovation Briefs, Issue 1, (2007), available at: http:// arbitrationblog, kluwerarbitration. com/ 2015/ 10/13/three-recent-decisions-further-shaping-investment-treaty-case-law-on-counterclaims-part-i/, last visit: 2019/3/30.
 - Crow, Kevin & Escobar, Lina Lorenzoni, “International Corporate Obligations, Human Rights, and the Urbaser Standard: Breaking New Ground?”, Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 36, Issue. 1, (2018).
 
Cases
 - Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, (27 June 1990).
 - Case concerning Oil Platforms Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, ICJ, (6 November 2003).
 - CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, (12 May 2005).
 - National Grid PLC v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Case 1:09-cv-00248-RBW, (3 November 2008).
 - Roussalis v. Romania, Declaration of W. Michael Reisman, (7 December 2011).
 - Saluka v. Czech Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic's Counterclaim, PCA, (7 May 2004).
 - Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, PCA, (17 March 2006).
 - Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, (1 December 2011).
 - Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa (Claimants), ICSID, Case No. ARB/07/26, (8 December 2016).
 
Documents
- Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, (1991).
 - Agreement between the Government of Romania and the Government of the Hellenic Republic on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, (1997).
 - Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Czech and Slovak Republic for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, (1990).
 - Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, (1965).
 - Human Rights Council Res. 15/9, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/15/9, (6 Oct. 2010).
 - International Convent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.
 - Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, A/HRC/17/31, (21 March  2011).
 - Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, (November 1977 and Amended March 2006).
 - U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Comm. on Econ, Soc. & Cultural Rights, Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 15, U.N. Doc. E/C. 12/2002/11 (20 Jan. 2003).
 - UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976& 2010
 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Rbaser v Argentina: The Origins of Host State Human Rights Counterclaim in ICSID Arbitration