تحول نظام مسئولیت بین المللی دولت در حقوق بین الملل سرمایه گذاری

نویسندگان

دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

حمایت از سرمایه گذار ی در چارچوب حقوق بین ا لملل عرفی به صور ت مسئولیتبین ا لمللی دولت در رفتار با بیگانگان مطرح شده است. در گذشته مداخله دولتها دراموال اتباع بیگانه بیشتر به شکل مصادره صورت م یگرفت و استناد به مسئولیت دولتناشی از مصادره نیز در چارچوب دعوایی بین دو دولت مطرح م یگردید. در دهه ها  اخیرموضوع حقوق بین الملل سرمایه گذاری جایگاه مستقل و مهمی به دست آورده و درچارچوب معاهدات سرمای هگذاری این امکان به سرمایه گذاران به عنوان اشخاصخصوصی داده شده است که در موارد نقض استانداردهای حمایتی مندرج در اینمعاهدات از سوی دولت میزبان، با طرح دعوا در داوری به مسئولیت این دولت استنادجویند. بنابراین استناد به مسئولیت در چارچوب معاهدات سرمایه گذاری صرفا در موردمصادره اموال سرمایه گذار نیست.امکان استناد به مسئولیت دولت از سوی سرمایه گذاران، در پرتو حقوق سرمایه گذار درمعاهدات دوجانبه و چندجانبه به این مسئولیت چهر های خاص م یبخشد و قواعد آن را تاحدودی از نظام عام مسئولیت دولت جدا م یکند. این ویژگی در بسیاری از موارد مستلزماعمال نظام فرعی مسئولیت دولت است که در چارچوب این معاهدات به وجود می آید .

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

 Evolution of the State Responsibility Regime in InternationalInvestment Law 

نویسنده [English]

  • mansour vesali mahmoud
چکیده [English]

The protection of investors in customary international law has beenaddressed in the context of state responsibility for the treatment of aliens.State interference with the property of aliens used to be exclusively in theform of expropriation, with responsibility for expropriation invoked in aninter-state level through the mechanism of diplomatic protection. In recentdecades, international investment law has obtained a significant position and,with the emergence of investment treaties, foreign investors enjoy directaccess to arbitration to invoke the responsibility of host states for breachingthe standards of protection provided in these treaties. Consequently, stateresponsibility for prejudicing the rights of foreign investors can also beinvoked in cases other than expropriation. The invoking of stateresponsibility by foreign investors, coupled with the nature of rights ofinvestors in investment treaties, gives state responsibility for breach ofstandards of investment protection the peculiar characteristic of excludingthe general rules of state responsibility in international law. This, then,would entail the application of a sub-system of state responsibility created byinvestment treaties.KeywordsInternational investment law, State responsibility, Treatment of aliens,Diplomatic protection, Investment treaties.

فهرست منابع
الف) فارسی
مجله ،« مصادره غیرمستقیم در حقوق بین الملل و رویه دیوان داوری ایران - ایالات متحده » ؛ 1. پیران، حسین
.415- حقوقی، ش 18 و 19 ، زمستان 1383 و بهار 1384 ، ص ص 484
2. دوپوئی، رنه ژان - لالیو، ژان فلاوین و ریگو، فرانسوا؛ یک رأی داوری و دو نقد(ترجمه کلانتریان، مرتضی)،
. تهران، نشر آگاه، 1379
3. لوونفلد، آندریاس؛ حقوق بی نالملل سرمای هگذاری خارجی(ترجمه قنبری جهرمی، محم د جعفر) ، تهران،
. انتشارات جنگل، جاودانه، چاپ اول، 1390
،« ماهیت حقوقی دیوان داوری دعاوی ایران -ایالات متحده از دیدگاه حقوق بین الملل » ؛ 4. محبی، محسن
.95- مجله حقوق ، ی ش 18 و 19 ، زمستان 1383 و بهار 1384 ، ص 144
مجله حقوق ، ی ش 35 ، پاییز و ،«( رویه داوری بین المللی درباره غرامت (دعاوی نفتی » ؛ 5. محبی، محسن
.9- زمستان 1385 ، ص ص 70
ب) انگلیسی
Books and articles
6. Amerasingh, Chittharanjan F., Diplomatic Protection, Oxford University Press,
2008.
7. Crawford, James, "Investment Arbitration and the ILC Articles on State
Responsibility", ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1,
2010, pp 127-199.
8. Douglas, Zachary, "Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration", British
Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 74, No. 1, 2003, pp 151-289.
9. Douglas, Zachary, International Law of Investment Claims, Cambridge University
Press, 2009.
10. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with
commentaries, in Yearbook of International Law Commission 2001, Vol. 2, Part 2,
United Nations, 2007, available at:
11. <http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_2001_v2_p2_
e.pdf>(last visited 10 January 2015)
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 71 تحول نظام مسئولیت بی نالمللی دولت در حقوق بی نالملل ...
179
12. Dugan, Christopher et al., Investor-State Arbitration, Oxford University Press,
2008.
13. Fietta, Stephen and Upcher, James, "Public International Law, Investment
Treaties and Commercial Arbitration: An Emerging System of
Complementarity?",Arbitration International, Vol. 29 (2), 2013, pp 187-222.
14. Johnson JR, O. ThomasS. and Gimblett, Jonathan, " From Gun-Boat to BITs: The
Evolution of Modern International Investment Law", inSauvant, Karl P. (ed.), The
Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2010-2011, Oxford
University Press, 2011.
15. Kurtz,Jürgen, "The Paradoxical Treatment of the ILC Articles on State
Responsibility in Investor-state Arbitration", ICSID Review-Foreign Investment
Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp 200-217.
16. Lalive, Pierre, "Some Objections to Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration",
available at:
17. <http://www.arbitrationicca.
org/media/0/12319105289900/objection_jurisdiction_investor_state_arbitratio
n.pdf>, (last visited 10 January 2015)
18. Miles, Kate, The Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment
and the Safeguarding of Capital, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
19. Newcombe, Andrew and Paradell, Luís, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties:
Standards of Treatment, Kluwer, 2009.
20. Paparinskis, Martins, "Investment Treaty arbitration and the (New) Law of State
Responsibility", European Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2013, pp
617-647.
21. Roberts, Anthea, "Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the
Investment Treaty System", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 107, No.
1, 2013, pp 45-94.
22. Seifi, Jamal, "Procedural Remedies against Awards of Iran-United States Claims
Tribunal", Arbitration International, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1992, pp 41-72.
23. Seifi, Jamal, "State Responsibility to enforce Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
Awards by the Respective National Courts; International Character and Non-
Reviewability of the Awards Reconfirmed", Journal of International Arbitration,
Vol. 16, No. 3, 1999, pp 5-28.
24. Sohn, Louis B. et al., "Excerpts from the Draft Convention on the International
Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens", Proceedings of the American
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 71 تحول نظام مسئولیت بی نالمللی دولت در حقوق بی نالملل ...
180
society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969), Vol. 54, 1960, pp
102-120.
25. Sornarajah, M., TheInternational Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge
University Press, 2nd edition, 2004.
26. Vandevalde, Kenneth J., Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and
Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2010.
27. Volterra, Robert, "International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility
and Investor-State Arbitration: do Investors Have rights?", ICSID Review-Foreign
Investment Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp 218-223.
28. Voss, Jan Ole,The Impact of Investment Treaties on Contracts between Host
States and Foreign Investors, MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2011.
Cases
ICJ & PCIJ Cases
29. Norwegian Shipowners' Claims (Norway v. United States of America),
Permanent Court of Arbitration, 13 October 1922.
30. Certain German Interest in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits Judgment) (Germany v.
Poland), (1926) PCIJ Reports, Series A, No. 7.
31. TheMavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Britain), (1924) PCIJ
Reports, Series A, No. 2.
32. La Grand Case (Germany v. United States), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001.
Investment Arbitration Cases:
33. Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v.
The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/5, Award of 21
November 2007.
34. BiwaterGauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/22, Award of 24 July 2008.
35. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/8, Decision of 17 July 2013on objections to jurisdiction,.
36. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/8, Award of 12 May 2005.
37. Compañía de AguasdelAconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine
Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision of 3 July 2002on Annulment.
38. Emilio AgustínMaffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7,
Decision of 25 January 2000of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 71 تحول نظام مسئولیت بی نالمللی دولت در حقوق بی نالملل ...
181
39. Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. The Argentine
Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision of 10 July 2010 on the
Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic.
40. IoanMicula and others v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision of 24
September 2008 on jurisdiction and admissibility.
41. Mytilineos Holdings SA v. The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and
Republic of Serbia, UNCITRAL proceedings, Partial ward of 8 September
2006on jurisdiction.
42. Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16,
Award of 28 September 2007.
43. SGS SociétéGénérale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID
Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of 6 August 2003of the tribunal on the objection to
jurisdiction.
44. The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America,
ICSID, Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award of 26 June 2003.
45. United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL
proceedings, Award on the merits of 24 May 2007.
46. Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States ("Number 2"), ICSID Case
No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award of 30 April 2004.
47. WintershallAktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/04/14, Award of 8 December 2008.
ج) فرانسه
48. Leben, Charles, "La ResponsabilitéInternationale de l'Étatsur le
Fondement des Traitésde Promotion et de Protection des
Investissements", Annuaire Français de Droit International, Vol. 50, 2004,
pp 683-714.
49. Gaillard, Emmanuel, "L'Arbitragesur le Fondement des Traités de Protection
des Investissements", Revue de l'Arbitrage, 2003, N. 4, pp 853-875