国际投资仲裁机制改革的美欧制度之争

The Institutional Contestation Between US and EU in the Reform of ISDS Mechanism

针对国际投资仲裁机制的缺陷,美国与欧盟在传统双边投资协定模式的基础上,分别以北美自由贸易协定模式与常设仲裁模式加以改革。两种模式在仲裁员由谁指定、上诉机制的设置以及仲裁庭的常设性和多边性等方面存在制度分歧。美欧的制度之争不仅反映了两者对国际投资仲裁机制改革应采取投资者主导型还是东道国主导型路径的不同认识,还反映了两者对国际投资仲裁制度主导权的争夺。对此,中国宜在多边路径下将国际投资仲裁机制纳入世界贸易组织争端解决机制,在区域路径下采纳北美自由贸易协定模式并加以适当调整。

To reform the ＂traditional BIT style＂ investor-state dispute settlement （IS- DS） mechanism, the US and EU have developed the ＂NAFTA Style＂ ISDS and the ＂Permanent Tribunal Style＂ ISDS respectively. The two mechanisms differ in the appointment of arbitrators, establishment of the appellate mechanism and the permanent and multilateral natures of the tri- bunal. The rule disparities reflect different priorities of US and EU in the establishment of ISDS mechanisms--namely the ＂investors dominant＂ vs. ＂host country dominant＂ mechanisms--and their different positions on the rule control of ISDS. Faced with rule contestation between US and EU, China should multilateralize the ISDS under the WTO, and promote the ＂ NAFTA style＂ ISDS with modifications in its international investment treaties with less developed countries.