نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه حقوق بین الملل عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

گاه سرمایه‌گذار خارجی پس از بروز اختلاف یا زمانی که اختلاف قابل پیش‌بینی است و به قصد طرح دعوی در مرجع داوری، اقدام به تغییر تابعیت یا کسب تابعیت جدید می‌نماید. این اقدام که برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت نام دارد، دسترسی سرمایه‌گذار خارجی به یک معاهده سرمایه‌گذاری مطلوب را تسهیل کرده و احتمال طرح دعوی علیه دولت میزبان را افزایش می‌دهد. از این‌رو دولت‌های میزبان تلاش می‌کنند با طرح ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا سوء استفاده از حق، مانع پذیرش چنین دعوایی شوند. رویکرد مراجع داوری در احراز صلاحیت زمانی خود و تشخیص موارد سوء استفاده از حق، در موفقیت یا عدم موفقیت دولت میزبان در مقابله با برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت تعیین‌کننده است. بنابراین باید به این پرسش پرداخته شود که مراجع داوری چه شرایطی را برای احراز صلاحیت زمانی و سوء استفاده از حق در نظر می‌گیرند و چگونه میان این دو تمایز قائل می‌شوند. رویه مراجع داوری حاکی از آن است که این مراجع میان مواردی از برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت که مانع صلاحیت زمانی آن‌هاست و مواردی که سوء استفاده از حق تلقی می‌گردد، تمایز قائل می‌شوند. هرچند رویکرد سخت‌گیرانه آنها در عمل موجب می‌شود تنها در موارد محدودی ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا ادعای سوء استفاده از حق مورد پذیرش واقع شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Role of Abuse of Rights Doctrine and Investment Arbitration Ratione Temporis in Limiting Nationality Planning

نویسندگان [English]

  • Niloofar Saeedi 1
  • Pouria Askary 2

1 Ph.D Student, International Law Allameh Tabataba'i , Tehran, Iran

2 Assoc. Professor, Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Sometimes foreign investors after the dispute have arisen or when it is predictable and with the intention of bringing the dispute to arbitration, change their nationality or acquire new nationality. The phenomenon called Nationality Planning eases foreign investors’ access to a desirable treaty and increases the chance of bringing disputes against host states.So host states try to avoid these disputes by raising objections to Ratione Temporis or claiming abuse of rights. Arbitration tribunals’ approach towards their Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights is material in host states’ success in limiting Nationality Planning. So the question to be answered is that what requirements are considered by arbitrations in determining Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights and how these two are different. Arbitral precedent shows that these tribunals make distinction between cases of nationality planning contrary to their Ratione Temporis and cases that are considered as abuse of rights. However, in practice their strict approach results in limited acceptation of objections to Ratione Temporis or abuse of rights claims.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Ratione Temporis
  • Abuse of Rights
  • Nationality Planning
  • Bilateral investment treaty
  • Foreign Investment Arbitratio
Refrences
Books
- Baumgartner, Jorun, Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2016).
- Mitchell, Andrew A. & Sornarajah, M; Voon, Tania, Good Faith and International Law Economy (UK: Oxford University Press, 2015).
- Nikièma, Suzy H., Definition of Investor (Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012).
- Schreuer, Christoph H., et al, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
Articles
- Gaillard, Emmanuel, “Abuse of Process in International Arbitration”, ICSID Review, Vol. 32, (2017).
- Savarese, Eduardo, “BIT Clause Bearing on Ratione Temporis Jurisdiction of ICSID Tribunal: Survey on Constituent Elements of Investor-State Legal Disputes under BITs”, Journal of World Investment and Trade, Vol. 10, (2009).
- Topcan, Utku, “Abuse of the Right to Access ICSID Arbitration”, ICSID Review, Vol. 29, (2014).
- Watson, Duncan & Brebner, Tom, “Nationality Planning and Abuse of Process: A Coherent Framework”, ICSID Review, Vol. 33, (2018).
Thesis
- Oke, Davis, Towards Limiting Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law and Arbitration: A Critical Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Denial of Benefits Clause, (A Thesis Submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of Ph.D., 2018).
Cases
- Alapli Elektrik v. Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/08/13, Award, 16 July 2012.
- Ampal-American Israel Corporation v. Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 February 2016.
- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003.
- Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Company v. Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No.34877, Interim Award, 1 December 2008.
- ConocoPhillips Hamaca v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 September 2013.
- Empresas Lucchetti & Lucchetti Peru v. Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/4, Award, 7 February 2005.
- Impreglio v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005.
- Lao Holdings v. Lao, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 February 2014.
- Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/97/7, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000.
- MCI Power and New Turbine v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007.
- Millicom International Operations and Sentel GSM v. Senegal, ICSID Case No ARB/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2010.
- Mobil v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/07/27, Decision on Jurisdiction, 10 June 2010.
- Mondev International v. United States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11 October 2002.
- Pac Rim v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction,1 June 2012.
- Philip Morris Asia v. Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012- 12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015.
- Phoenix Action v. Czech, ICSID Case No ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009.
- Ping an Life Insurance Company of China and Ping An Insurance of China v Belgium, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29, Award, 30April 2015.
- Renée Rose Levy v. Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/10/17, Award, 26 February 2014.
- Salini and Italstrade v. Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 November 2004.
- ST-AD v. Bulgaria, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2011- 06, Award on Jurisdiction, 18 July 2013.
- Suez v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 May 2006.
- Tidewater v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/10/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2013.
Conventions
- Canada-Peru BIT, 14 November 2006.
- Iran-Singapore BIT, 29 February 2016.
- Italy-Pakistan BIT, 19 July 1997.
- Nigeria-UAE BIT, 18 January 2016.
- Nigeria-Singapore BIT, 4 November 2016.
- Turkey-Cote d'lvoire BIT, 29 February 2016.
- United States Model BIT, 2004.[1]