نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه مفید، قم، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه مفید، قم، ایران

چکیده

ملاحظات محیط­ زیستی همواره یکی از چالش ­های پیش­روی سرمایه­ گذاری خارجی بوده است. لزوم رعایت حداقل­ های زیست‌محیطی از آغاز تا پایان سرمایه ­گذاری، از دغدغه ­های فعالان حوزه حقوق محیط­ زیست نیز می­ باشد. در این میان دولت میزبان با تعهداتی بعضاً متعارض روبروست. تعهدات دوگانه دولت­ در برابر سرمایه­ گذار از یک طرف و عموم شهروندان از طرف دیگر، در موارد متعددی به بروز اختلافاتی منجر شده که ریشه در هنجارهای محیط­ زیستی دارد. پرسش اصلی این است که سازوکار داوری در مواجهه با این نوع اختلافات، چگونه می­ تواند فعالانه موضع ­گیری نمایند؟ هدف اصلی این مطالعه بررسی بازتاب تعارض­ ها در رویه داوری سرمایه ­گذاری و اهمیت و نقش داوری در بهبود وضعیت محیط­ زیستی است. نویسندگان این نوشتار بر این باورند که سیستم داوری، ابزارهایی در اختیار دارد که می ­تواند از آنها در جریان حل اختلاف برای ایجاد تعادل میان این تعهدات متعارض استفاده کند. برخی از این ابزارهای حقوقی مستقیم یا غیرمستقیم با معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری مرتبط است و دسته­ای دیگر فرامعاهده ­ای و ناشی از اصول، قواعد، عرف ­ها و رویه­ های بین­ المللی است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Capacity of the International Investment Arbitration Mechanism in Environmental Protection

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Habibi Majandeh 1
  • afife gholami 2

1 Assistant Professor, International Law, Mofid University, Qom, Iran

2 Ph.D Student, International Law, Mofid University, Qom, Iran

چکیده [English]

Environmental considerations have always been a challenge for foreign investment. The need to observe environmental minimums from the beginning to the end of the investment is also a concern of environmental law activists. In the meantime, the host state faces sometimes conflicting commitments. State dual obligations to foreign investors on the one hand, and the whole citizens on the other, has in many cases led to disputes, rooted in environmental norms. The main question is how the arbitration mechanism can take an active stand in the face of such disputes? The main purpose of this study is to examine the reflection of these conflicts in investment arbitration and the importance and role of arbitration in improving the environmental status. The authors of this paper believe that the arbitration system has tools that it can use in resolving disputes to balance these conflicting obligations. Some of these legal tools are directly or indirectly related to investment agreements, and others are beyond the treaty and based on international principles, rules, customs and practices.   

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Investment Disputes
  • Environmental protection
  • Bilateral Treaties
  • International arbitration
  • Legal Instruments
کتاب‌ها
-آقایی، بهمن، فرهنگ حقوقی بهمن (انگلیسی-فارسی) (تهران: کتابخانه گنج­ دانش، 1387).
- سوبدی، سوریا، حقوق بین­الملل سرمایه­گذاری، آشتی سیاست و اصول، محمد حبیبی مجنده (قم: دانشگاه مفید، 1398).
- هدایتی، وحید، تعامل داوری سرمایه­گذاری خارجی با حقوق عمومی (تهران: انتشارات خرسندی، 1395).
مقاله‌ها
- بهزادی پارسی، آرش و سیفی، سید جمال، «رابطه میان حقوق سرمایه­گذار خارجی و تعهدات بین­المللی حقوق بشر و محیط ­زیست»، مجله حقوقی بین­المللی، پاییز و زمستان، شماره 61، (1398).
- پورنوری، منصور و مخترع، آیدا، «دعاوی و تعارضات موجود بین تعهدات زیست­محیطی و تعهدات ناشی از حقوق بین­الملل سرمایه­گذاری و چگونگی حل­وفصل آن­ها»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی آزاد، پاییز، دوره 5، شماره 17، (1391).
- سیفی، سیدجمال و احمدنژاد، منصور، «تأملی بر حمایت از دولت میزبان در حقوق بین­الملل سرمایه­گذاری خارجی»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، ویژه­نامه، زمستان، شماره 11، (1391).
- موسوی، سیدفضل الله و قیاسیان، فهیمه، «جبران خسارت زیست­محیطی در حقوق بین­الملل»، فصلنامه حقوق، مجله دانشکده حقوق وعلوم سیاسی، دوره41، شماره1، (1390).
- موسوی، سیدفضل الله ودیگران، «اصول حقوق بین­الملل محیط ­زیست در پرتو آرای مراجع حقوقی بین­المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال هفدهم، پاییز، شماره 48، (1394).
- نساری، الناز و زمانی، سید قاسم، «سلب مالکیت زیست­محیطی در رویه داوری سرمایه­گذاری خارجی»، پژوهش­های حقوق تطبیقی، پاییز، دوره 22، شماره 3، (1397).
References
Books
- Baetens, Freya, (Ed.), Investment Law Within International Law: Integrationist Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
- Brekoulakis, Stavros L., Lew, Julian D.M., Mistelis, Loukas A.(ed.), The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration (Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2016).
- Brown, Chester and Miles, Kate(eds), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration  (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
- Bücheler, Gebhard, Proportionality in Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2015).
- Dolzer, Rudolf & Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008).
- Ellis, Evelyn, The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000).
- Sornarajah, M., The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge University Press, 3d Ed, 2010).
- Viñuales, Jorge E., Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
-Weeramantry, J. Romesh, Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2012).
-Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2012–2013 (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Articles
- Arato, Julian, “The Margin of Appreciation in InternationalInvestment Law”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 54, No. 3, (2014).
- Arcuri, Alessandra and Montanaro, Francesco, “Justice for All? Protecting the Public Interest in Investment Treaties”, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 59, (2018).
- Beharry, Christina L. & Kuritzky, Melinda E., “Going Green: Managing the Environment Through International Investment Arbitration”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 30, (2015).
- Bjorklund, Andrea K., “The Role of Counterclaims in Rebalancing Investment Law”, Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, (2013).
- Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence, “Environmental Protection and Investment Arbitration: Yin and Yang?”, Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional, Vol. 10, (2017).
- Davies, Haydn, “Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Future of the Precautionary Principle”, British Journal of American Legal Studies, Vol. 5, (2016).
- Gordon, Kathryn and Pohl, Joachim, “Environmental Concerns in International Investment Agreements: A Survey”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, OECD Publishing, (2011).
 - Howse, Robert, “International Investment Law and Arbitration: A Conceptual Framework”, IILJ Working Paper 2017/1 MegaReg Series, institute for International Law and Justice, NewYork University School of Law, No.1, (2017).
- Ishikawa, Tomoko, “Third Party Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 59, (2010).
- Levine, Eugenia, “Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, (2011).
- Mann, Howard and Others, “IISD Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development”, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), (2005),
- Mehta, Aastha, “International Arbitration in Trans-National Environmental Disputes”, Journal of Legal Studies and Research, Vol. 2, (2016).
- Newcombe, Andrew, “General Exceptions in International Investment Agreements”, Draft Discussion Paper Prepared for BIICL Eighth Annual WTO Conference 13th and 14th May, London, (2008).
- Parlett, Kate and Ewad, Sara, “Protection of the Environment in Investment Arbitration–A Double-Edged Sword”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, (2017).
- Sands, Philippe, “Litigating Environmental Disputes: Courts, Tribunals and the Progressive Development of International Environmental Law”, OECD, Global Forum on int'l Investment, Session 2.2, (2008).
- Schill, Stephan W., “Deference in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Reconceptualizing the Standard of Review”, Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper No. 2012/33, (2012).
- Sundararaja, Anagha, “Environmental Counterclaims: Enforcing International Environmental Law Through Investor-State Arbitration”, Salzburg Global Seminar, (2017).
- Tamar, Meshel, “Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment”, (2016), EiPro Sample Entry, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.
- Vadi, Valentina, “Environmental Impact Assessment in Investment Disputes: Method, Governance and Jurisprudence”, Polish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 30, (2011).
- Wu, Mark & Salzman, James, “The Next Generation of Trade and Environment Conflicts: The Rise of Green Industrial Policy”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 108, No. 2, (2014).
- Yarik, Kryvoi, “Counterclaims in Investor-State Arbitration”, Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 2, (2012).
 
 
Documents
- Agreement on the Promotion and Protection of Investments Between Finland and Armenia, 2004.
- Agreement Between Canada and Egypt for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1996.
- Agreement between Jordan and Singapore on the Establishement of the Free Trade Area, 2004.
- Agreement between the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union and Colombia on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, 2009.
- Agreement between Germany and China on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 2003.
- Canada Model Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investment, 2004.
- Commission adopts Communication on Precautionary Principle, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 2000.
- FTC, Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non-disputing Party Participation, 2003.
- ICSID 2017 Annual Report, Washington D.C., 2017.
- International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights Disputes Questions and Answers, The Working Group on International Arbitration of Business and Human Rights,2017.
- International Court of Justice Annual Report 1992–1993, 1993.
- Netherlands model Investment Agreement, 2019.
- Norway Model Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Draft Version 130515), 2015.
- Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to NaturalResources and/or the Environment, Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2001.
- Press Communiqué 93/20, Int’l Court of Justice, Constitution of a Chamber of the Court for Environmental Matters, 1993.
- Towards a New Generation of International Investment Policies: UNCTAD’s Fresh Approach to Multilateral Investment Policy-Making, No.5, 2013.
-Unctad Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2011/7, United Nations Publication, 2012.
-U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2012.
Cases
- A. Allard v. Barbados, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No.2012-06, Notice of Dispute, 2009.
- Bernhard von Pezold v. Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No.ARB/10/15, Procedural Order No.2, 2012.
- Bilcon v. Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No.2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 2015.
- Biwater v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No.ARB/05/22, Award, 2008,
- Chemtura v. Canada, Ad Hoc NAFT an Arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules, Award, 2010.
- Chevron and Texaco v. Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No.34877, Partial Award on the Merits, 2010.
- Daimler Fin. v. Argentine, ICSID Case No.ARB/05/1, Award, 2012.
- Ethyl Corp. v. Canada, Preliminary Tribunal Award on Jurisdiction, UNCITRAL, 1998.
- Genin v. Estonia, ICSID Case No.ARB/99/2, Award, 2001.
- Glamis Gold. v. United States, Non-Disputing Party Submission of the National Mining Association, UNCITRAL, 2006.
- Glamis Gold. v. United States, Award, UNCITRAL, 2009.
- Inmaris v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No.ARB/08/8, Award, 2012.
- Maritime v. Guinea, ICSID Case No.ARB/84/4, Decision, 1989.
- Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No.ARB/10/3, Award, 2013.
- Methanex v. United States, Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, UNCITRAL, 2005.
- Methanex v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as Amici Curiae, 2001.
- Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No.ARB/06/11, Award, 2012.
-Philip Morris v. Uruguay, ICSID Case No.ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2013.
- Quiborax S.A. v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No.ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2012.
- Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No.ARB/06/1, Award, 2011.
- Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No.ARB/06/1, Separate Opinion of Michael Reisman, 2011.
- S.D. Myers v. Canada, Partial Award on Liability, UNCITRAL, 2000.
-Saluka Invests. v. Czech, Partial Award, UNCITRAL, 2006.
- Santa Elena, v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB /96/1, Final Award, 2000.
- Sempra Energy v. Argentine, ICSID Case No.ARB/02/16, Award, 2007.
- Siemens v. Argentine, Award, ICSID Case No.ARB/02/8, 2007.
- Suez v. Argentine, ICSID Case No.ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curie, 2005.
- Tecmed v. Mexican, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, 2003.
- Urbaser v. The Argentine, ICSID Case No.ARB/07/26, Award, 2016.