انتظارات مشروع سرمایه گذار در تقابل با منافع اساسی کشور میزبان و تحلیل آن بعنوان ‏ریسک ‏سیاسی‎ ‎‎ ‎‏

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه آزاد واحد اسلامشهر

10.22054/jplr.2019.34536.1955

چکیده

دولت‏های میزبان در تلاش برای جمع بین دو هدف تشویق و حمایت از سرمایه گذاری خارجی از یک سو و حفاظت از منافع ‏اساسی خویش از سوی دیگر که گاه در تعارض با یکدیگر قرار می گیرند، تدبیری اندیشیده اند از جمله درج شرط استثنای ‏مربوط به حفظ منافع اساسی دولت در توافقات سرمایه گذاری که به دولتها ‏اجازه می دهد تا  در مواقعی که  بخواهند مفاد ‏معاهده را محدود کنند یا تخصیص زنند به منافع اساسی ‏استناد کنند.‏ در نقطه مقابل ، درج شرط ثبات در قراردادهای سرمایه ‏گذاری جهت کاهش ریسک قانون گذاری ، عدم تبعیض از طریق اعطای رفتار ملی و یا رفتار ملتهای کامله الوداد،  به عنوان ‏مهمترین تعهد دولتها در مواجهه با سرمایه گذاری خارجی در کنار برخی مفاهیم حمایتی دیگر چون تعهد به اعطای رفتار ‏عادلانه و منصفانه در رابطه با سرمایه گذاری خارجی مطرح می گردد. حمایت از این انتظارات در بسیاری از موارد در تعارض ‏و اصطکاک با حفظ منافع اساسی قرار می گیرد . لذا در این مقاله علاوه بر بررسی شرط حفظ منافع اساسی در تقابل با ‏استانداردهای حمایت از سرمایه گذار در رویه توافقات سرمایه گذاری بین المللی، برخی از آرای داوری صادره نیز مورد ‏بررسی قرار می گیرد.‏

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The legitimate expectations of the investor in contrast to the essential ‎security interests of the host state and its analysis as a political risk

نویسنده [English]

  • mehdi meyhami
Assistant Professor of Law in Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr
چکیده [English]

The governments is trying to reconcile between the two Targets to encourage and ‎support foreign investment on the one side and protect of their essential interests on the ‎other hand,Sometimes in conflict with each other, Manage have taken of inserting the ‎condition of exception to the fundamental interests of the host state, international ‎investment agreements which allows governments to invocate essential security ‎interests whenever they wish to restrict or allocate the provisions of the treaty.‎
In contrast, investment contracts listed in stablization clause in order to reduce the ‎risk of legislative,Non-discrimination by granting national treatment and most favored ‎nations behavior,As The most important government's commitment in the face of ‎foreign investment, Along with some other supporting concepts such as the obligation to ‎provide fair and equitable treatment in relation to foreign investment is ‎raised.Supporting these expectations in many cases in conflict and friction with the ‎fundamental interests are preserved.‎
thus, In this article, in addition to analyse the fundamental interests clause in contrast ‎to the standards of investor protection In the practice of international investment ‎agreements, Some arbitral awards issued are also examined.‎

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Legitimate expectations ‎
  • fundamental interests of the host state
  • stablization clause ‎‎
  • political risk
  • Protective Standards.‎

-     القشیری، احمد و ریاض ، طارق «قانون حاکم بر نسل جدید قراردادهای نفتی: چرخش درروند داوری» ترجمه محسن محبی، مجله حقوقی بین المللی، ش 29، 1382،صص 109-29.

-      تی بی کول، مارگاریتا، «شروط ثبات در معاملات نفتی بین‌المللی» ،ترجمه مصطفی السان و علی رضایی،مجله حقوقی بین المللی، ش 37، 1386،صص 191-169.

-      کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل سازمان ملل متحد، مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها؛ متن و شرح مواد کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل، ترجمه علیرضا ابراهیم گل، تهران، مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، تهران، 1388.

-     محبی، محسن، مباحثی از حقوق نفت و گاز در پرتو رویه داوری بین‌المللی، تهران، مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، 1393‏.

 

English sources

-   Dolzer, Rudolf," New Foundations of the Law of Expropriation of Alien Property", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 75, No. 3, 1981,pp. 553-589.

-  Fortier ,L Yves and L Drymer,Stephen , "Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See ‎It, or Caveat Investor" 13(1) Asia Pac L Rev,2008, vol 13,pp.293–327.

-   Hunter,Martin and Sinclair, Anthony, Aminoil Revisited, Reflections on a Story of Changing Circumstances, in International law and Arbitration, Leading Cases from the ICSID, Nafta, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International law, London,Edited by Todd Weiler. , 2005.

-   Kurtz, Ju¨rgen,"Adjudging the Exceptional at International Investment Law: Security, Public‏ ‏Order, and Financial‏ ‏Crisis",  NYU School of Law, Quarterly 325, 2010,pp.328-356.

-   M. Franck,Thomas, Fairness in International Law and Institutions,london, Oxford University Press, 1995.

-  Peter Muchlinsky, "Caveat Investor’? The relevance of the conduct of the investor under the fair and equitable treatment standard", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol. 55, No. 3 , 2006, pp. 527-557.

-   Sornarajah, M., The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.3 rd edition, 2010.

-   Waelde, Thomas and Kolo, Abba, "Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and Regulatory Taking in International Law", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.50, No.4,2012, pp. 811-848.

-   W. Burke White  ,William and von Staden,Andreas , "Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties", Virginia Journal of International Law, vol 48,2008,pp.309-409.

 

Treaties:

- The BIT between the United States and Uruguay (2005).

- the BIT between Estonia and the United States (1994).

- the BIT between India and Czech Republic (1996).

- the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)(signed 1992, entered into force 1994).

- the Canadian Model BIT (2004).

- the General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS)(1994).

- the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)(signed 1994, entered into force (1998).

- the BIT between Switzerland and Mexico (1995).

- the BIT between Austria and Mexico (1998).

- the BIT between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (2009).

- the BIT between the United States and Argentina (1994).

- the BIT between the United Kingdom and India (1995).

- the BIT between India and China (2006).

 

 Cases:

- Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.Ş.v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award, 27 August 2009, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania ICSID Case No ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- Continental Casualty Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award, 5 September 2008.

- Chemtura Corporation v. Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award, 2 August 2010, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. the Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, May 12, 2005, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- Continental Casualty Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.Arb/03/9, Award, para 19‎‏ ‏‎,5 ‎September 2008), http://italaw.uvic.ca/docu ments/ContinentalCasualtyAward.pdf ‎.

- Duke Energy Electroquil P artners and Electroquil SA v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No.ARB/04/19, Award, 12 August 2008, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award of 31 October 2011, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- Enron Corp. Ponderosa Asset, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.Arb/01/3, Award, ‎para.,22 May 2007),http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Enron‏-.

- Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd et al. v. USA, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award, 12 January 2011, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico,NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award, 26 January 2006.

- Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Award, 6 November 2008.

- ‘Kuwait v Aminoil, Ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal, available at: https://www.biicl.org/.

- LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. Arb/02/1,3 October 2006), [ ‎http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/ARB021‎‏_‏‎ LGE-Decision-on-Liability-en.pdf.

- MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award, May 25, 2004,available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- Methanex Corporation v United States of America (2005), UNCITRAL, Final Award,available at: ‎https://www.italaw.com/cases/683‎.

- Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, (n 16) at 47,available at: ‎ ‎https://www.italaw.com/ cases/ documents/ 1088.‎

- Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467, Award, 2001, available at: http://www.italaw.com/.

- Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lituania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007, Para133, available at: http://www.italaw.com.

- Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, mar 17,2006, available at: http://www.italaw.com/ (last visited on 21/8/2016).

- Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. Arb/02/16, Award, para 346 (28‎‏ ‏September 2007), http://www.investmentclaims.com/decisions‏/ ‏Sempra_Energy-Award.pdf .‎

- Total S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Decision on Liability, December 2010.