论ICSID仲裁主权债务重组争端的管辖路径——以两起阿根廷被诉案为起点

Studies on ICSID Tribunal's Jurisdiction of the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Disputes

ICSID仲裁庭对两起以阿根廷为被告的主权债务重组争端仲裁案做出有权管辖权裁定后,学界掀开了仲裁庭是否具备管辖主权债务重组争端的大讨论。《华盛顿公约》第25条与投资条约中"同意"间的关系表明仲裁庭对物管辖需要通过双重审查来确定。而仲裁庭取得管辖权的核心问题是主权债券"投资"属性的确定。从Salini案确定的判断投资性质的客观要素分析,主权债券可以达到这些客观审查标准进而被仲裁庭管辖。通过分析条约之诉与契约之诉的竞合状态可知,ICSID仲裁解决主权债务重组争端存在法律上的可行性,只要适用得当并做好被滥用的防范准备,不失为一种解决主权债务重组争端的路径。

After ICSID Tribunal established jurisdiction on two sovereign debt restruc^aring disputes concerning Argentine as defendant, the academe has opened a heated discussion on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The relationship between Article 25 of the ICSID Convention and the ＂consent＂ of a BIT indicates that the jurisdiction of the tribunal needs to be determined through a double keyhole approach. While the core issue of the jurisdiction is the investment nature of sovereign bonds. Judging from the Salini Test, the sovereign bond can meet these objective examination criteria and then be governed by the Tribunal. ICSID arbitration has the legal feasibility to settle the dispute from sovereign debt restructuring, so it can be regarded as a solution as long as it is properly applied.