评埃尔帕索能源国际公司诉阿根廷共和国仲裁案

自上世纪中期以来,国际投资活动繁荣发展。东道国试图吸引更多的海外投资,投资者则需要有力的投资保护,“保护伞条款”应运而生。但在其后的发展中,该条款引发了投资方将国内投资合同争端上升为国际投资协定争端的问题。埃尔帕索能源国际公司诉阿根廷共和国仲裁案是国际投资实践中关于“保护伞条款”适用范围的标志性案例,仲裁庭对保护伞条款的适用范围的认定产生了深远影响。仲裁庭认为《阿根廷—美国BIT》与美国2004年BIT范本的主要旨意是一致的,并不完全排除保护伞条款义务中的合同义务,而是根据个案分析的原则认定违反义务的实际情况。如果东道国在违反投资协议同时也违反了BIT,那么仲裁庭认为BIT中的投资争议解决条款就有约束力,仲裁机构因此具有管辖权。本文对埃尔帕索能源国际公司诉阿根廷共和国仲裁案的案件事实、争议焦点进行梳理,并对其中保护伞条款是否适用于违反合同义务产生的争端进行评析。

Since the middle of last century,international investment activities have flourished.The"umbrella clause"came into being when the host country tried to attract more overseas investment and investors needed strong investment protection.But in the later development,the clause raised the issue of raising the dispute of domestic investment contract to international investment agreement.El Paso v.Argentina is a landmark case on the scope of application of the Umbrella Clause in international investment practice.The tribunal's finding on the scope of application of the Umbrella Clause has had a far-reaching influence.The tribunal held that the main thrust of the Argentina-United States BIT and the U.S.2004 model BIT were consistent,and did not entirely exclude the contractual obligations under the umbrella clause in their award,but determined the actual breach of the obligations according to the principle of case-by-case analysis.If the host country also breaches some provisions of the BIT when breaching the investment agreement,such as fair and equitable treatment,the tribunal shall consider the investment dispute resolution provisions of the BIT to be binding and have jurisdiction.This article sets out the facts and disputed issues of El Paso v.Argentina,as well as an assessment of the applicability of the umbrella clause to obligations arising out of a breach of contract.