Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Private Law, Faculty of Law and political science, Allameh Tabatab'i University, Tehran ran
2 Assistant professor of Faculty of Law and Political Science of Allameh Tabataba'i University
Abstract
The doctrine of ‘corporate veil’ is one of most controversial issues in international arbitration. Arbitral tribunals have taken different views as to whether the corporate veil should be lifted in investment arbitration. In ICSID arbitration, this doctrine has been discussed in the context of ‘nationality’ by considering ‘foreign control’ and ‘treaty shopping’, and there are conflicting awards in this regard. The problem arises when tribunals face the question of lifting corporate veil by applying the criterion of ‘nationality’. Treaty shopping itself has been subject to controversy and different interpretations. The controversy is posed when tribunals assess the relevance of place of registration as a criterion for determination of corporate nationality. By evaluating ICSID arbitration awards, this article argues that the doctrine of corporate veil has been recognized in the majority of cases. It concludes that at least, in ICSID arbitration, this doctrine may not be perceived as a strict exception.
Keywords
الف- فارسی
کتاب
- براتی دارانی، علی اکبر، (1395)، نظام صلاحیت ایکسید و حل و فصل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری، چاپ اول، تهران: موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش.
مقاله‌ها
- ابراهیمی، سید نصرالله، سلطان زاده، سجاد، (1393)، «مفهوم سرمایه‌گذاری در رویه داوری مرکز حل و فصل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی (ایکسید)»، مجلهحقوقیبین‌المللی، شماره 50.
- اسکینی، ربیعا، (1390)، «تعیین تابعیتهای شرکت‌های تجاری در حقوق تطبیقی و حقوق بین‌الملل»، حقوق خصوصی، دوره 6، شماره 14.
- جنیدی، لعیا و زارع، ملیحه، (1394)، «اعمال قاعدۀ خرق حجاب شخصیت حقوقی بر مدیران؛ تحلیل مسئولیت مدیران شرکت‌های سرمایه در قبال دیون پرداخت نشدۀ شرکت»، مطالعاتحقوقتطبیقی، دوره 6، شمارة 1.
- زمانی، سید قاسم، درونپرور، امیر، (1394)، «پویایی مفهوم سرمایه‌گذاری در پرتو متدولوژیهای احراز صلاحیت ایکسید»، فصلنامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، دوره 20، شماره 69.
- شهبازی نیا، عیسایی، کاویانی و فرجی، (1390)، «عبور از شخصیت حقوقی شرکت در فرض تقلب شریک در حقوق ایران و انگلیس»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، سال 75، شماره 75.
- مجتهدی، محمدرضا، (1390)، «درآمدی بر حقوق حل وفصل اختلافات سرمایه‌گذاری بینالمللی بر مبنای کنوانسیون (داوری ایکسید)»، نشریهعلمی-پژوهشیفقهوحقوقاسلامی، سال دوم، شماره 3.
- مقصودی، رضا، داودی، حسین، (1394)، «تغییر تابعیت شرکت‌های تجارتی در حقوق ایران»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورة 45 ، شمارة 4.
ب- انگلیسی
Books
- Dolzer, R, and Schreuer, C, (2008), Principles of International Investment Law, London: Oxford University Press.
- Polonskaya, K, (2014), Abuse of Rights: Should the Investor-State Tribunals Extend the Application of the Doctrine?, LLM Graduate thesis, University of Toronto: Faculty of Law.
- Newcombe, A, Paradell, L, (2009), Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, London: Kluwer Law International.
- Schreuer, C, (2010), The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, London: Cambridge University Press.
- Schllemmer, E, (2008), Investment, Investor, Nationality and Shareholders in the Oxford Handbook of International Law, Edited by Peter Muchlinski, Federico Ortino and Christoph Schreuer, London: Oxford University Press.
- Sornarajah, M, (2010), The International Law on Foreign Investment, Third Edition, London: Cambridge University Press.
- Subedi, Surya P, (2008), International Investment Law Reconciling Policy and Principle, London: Hart Publishing.
Articles
- Brabandere De, Eric, (2012), “Good Faith”, “Abuse Of Process” and the Initiation of Investment Treaty Claims, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vo. 3, No. 3.
- Sinclair, Anthony, (2008). “ICSID’s Nationality Requirement”, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vo. 23, No. 1.
- Fillers, Aleksandrs, (2014), “Corporate Nationality in International Investment Law”, European Scientific Journal, Vo.1, No. November.
- Feldman, Mark, (2012), “Setting Limits on Corporate Nationality Planning in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vo. 27, No. 2.
- Hansen, Robin, (2012), “The Systemic Challenge of Corporate Investor Nationality in an Era of Multinational Business”, Journal of Arbitration and Mediation, Vo. 1, No. 1.
- Garcı´a-Bolı´var, Omar E, (2010), “Protected Investments and Protected Investors: The Outer Limits of ICSID’s Reach”, Trade, Law and Development Journal, Vo. 2, No .1.
- Valasek J., Martin and Dumberry, Patrick, (2011), “Developments in the Legal Standing of Shareholders and Holding Corporations in Investor-State Disputes”, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vo. 26, No. 1.
- Kirtley, William Lawton, (2009) “The Transfer of Treaty Claims and Treaty-Shopping in Investor-State Disputes”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vo. 10, No. 3.
- Lee, Chieh, (2016), “Resolving Nationality Planning Issue Through the Application of the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil in International Investment Arbitration”, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vo. 9, No. 1.
- Schreuer, Christoph, (2009), “Nationality of Investors: Legitimate Restrictions vs. Business Interests”, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vo. 24, No. 2.
- Shmatenko, Leonid, (2012), “Piercing the Corporate Veil is Relative”, Young Arbitration Review, Vo. 25, No. 4.
- Topcan, Utku, (2014), “Abuse of the Right to Access ICSID Arbitration”, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vo. 29, No. 3.
Cases
- ADC Affiliate Ltd. and ADC & ADMC Mgmt. Ltd. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, Oct. 2, 2006.
- Aguas del Tunari S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction , Oct. 21, 2005.
- Banro American Resources, Inc. and Société Aurifère du Kivu et du Maniema S.A.R.L. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/7, Award, Sept.1, 2000.
- Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005.
- Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, April, 2009
- Rompetrol Group NV v Romania, Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No ARB/06/3, 18 April 2008.
- S. P. Prop. (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, April 14, 1988.
- Saluka Investments BV v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006.
- Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Dissenting Opinion, Apr. 29, 2004.
- Tokios Tokele_s v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April, 2004.
- TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5, Award, Dec. 19, 2008.
- Tidewater Inc., Tidewater Investment SRL, Tidewater Caribe, C.A., et al. v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, Feb 2013.
- Telekom A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award, July 29, 2008.
- Vacuum Salt Products Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/92/1, 1994.
- Veteran Petroleum Ltd v Russian Federation, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, PCA Case No AA 228, 30 November 2009.
- Yukos Universal Ltd v Russian Federation, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, PCA Case No AA 227, 30 November 2009.
- Zhinvali Development Ltd. v. Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Jan. 24, 2003.
سایر مستندات
- Antony D’Amato, “Good Faith in Encyclopedia of Public International Law” (1992), Antony D’Amato (blog), Available at: anthonydamato.law. northwestern. edu/encyclopedia/good-faith.pdf, Last accessed 2017.03.01.
- BIT between the Government of Netherlands and Venezuela, Entered into force from 1993
- BIT between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Entered into force from 2005.
- BIT between the Government of the Republic of Austria and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran Entered into force from 2004.
- BIT between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica for the Protection and Promotion of Investments annex I, S III(7), entered into force from 1999.
- BIT between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, entered into force from 2009.
- BIT Among the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, signed 2012.
- BIT between Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom, Entered into force from 2001.
- BIT between Belgium – Luxembourg and Pakistan, Entered into force from 2015.
- International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries’ ILC YB 1966, Vol. II.
- Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, ICSID Doc.2, 18 March 1965.
- Rules of Procedure for the Institution of Conciliation and Arbitration Proceedings, Rule. 2: Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/process/ICSID-Convention-Conciliation.aspx. Last Accessed 2019.02.02.
- UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: (2006), Trends in Investment Rulemaking, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2006/5, available at: http://www.unctad.org/en/ docs/iteiia20065en.pdf, Last accessed 2017.02.15.
)