ICSID公约第72条之“同意”释义

On the interpretation of “consent” in Article 72 of the ICSID Convention

伴随着玻利维亚、厄瓜多尔和委内瑞拉三个拉美国家相继通知退出ICSID公约,国际法理论界与实务界在理解与适用ICSID公约的退出条款问题上产生了分歧。究其原因,对公约第72条中的"同意"一词理解不同乃关键所在。ICSID公约第72条中的"同意"应被解释为"同意要约"或"单方同意"。东道国受ICSID管辖的"同意"一旦做出,即成为其一项强制性的国际义务,该"同意要约"具有不可撤销性。退出国在通知退出前所作的受ICSID管辖的"同意要约"非但在退出前有效,而且在通知退出与退出生效之间的"缓冲期"内仍能保持效力,即便退出ICSID公约生效后,依然有效。但有权"接受"退出国"同意要约"的投资必须为东道国退出ICSID公约生效前已进行的投资。

The three Latin American countries, namely Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, successively denounced the ICSID Convention, international law theorists as well as the practitioners diverge a lot on the issue of comprehending and applying the denunciation clauses in the ICSID Convention. The critical reason is that they have different understanding of the word "consent" in Article 72 of the Convention. "Consent" in Article 72 of the ICSID Convention shall be interpreted as "offer of consent" or "unilateral consent". Once the "consent" to subject to ICSID jurisdiction has been given by the host state, it amounts to a compulsory international obligation, and the "offer of consent" becomes irrevocable. The "offer of consent" to subject to ICSID jurisdiction given before the denunciation notice by the denunciation country is acceptable not only before the denunciation, but also during the "waiting period"(between the denunciation notice and effectiveness of the denunciation), and it remains valid even after the denunciation of the ICSID Convention takes effect. But the foreign investments able to "accept" the "offer of consent" made by the denunciation country shall be confined to the ones made prior to the effective date of the host country's denunciation.