投资协定中缔约国联合解释机制对仲裁庭约束力问题研究

A Study on Binding Effect of Joint Interpretation by Contracting States in Bilateral Investment Treaties on Arbitral Tribunals

在国际投资仲裁中,由于部分投资协定的规定有很大的解释空间,若完全由仲裁庭进行解释,可能会产生一系列问题,影响仲裁庭的公信力。而缔约国联合解释在国际法上一直以来都被认为有权解释,其重要性将日渐突出。本文将针对投资协定中约定的联合解释对仲裁庭之约束力展开探讨。通过总结相关案例可以发现,当投资协定中约定可以联合解释时,大部分仲裁庭会直接认可联合解释的约束力,但小部分仲裁庭并不予以直接认可,而会另外分析如下几个因素:"联合解释是否构成对国际法强行法或习惯国际法之违反;缔约国解释是否构成对条约的修订;缔约国联合解释是否损害了投资者利益;以及缔约国联合解释是否违反了正当程序原则。"基于上述分析,本文建议中国日后签订投资协定时,应当加入"联合解释对仲裁庭有约束力"的措辞,同时尽量在争端发生之前就协定约定模糊的问题发布联合解释,并且避免用协定修订的正式格式发布联合解释。

In international investment arbitration,due to the uncertainty of the interpretation of BITs,a range of problems would arise if the tribunal is the only interpreter,which would affect the credibility of the tribunal.Therefore,joint interpretation,as a type of authentic interpretation in international law,becomes increasingly important.This article will discuss the binding effect of joint interpretation on the tribunals.After summarizing relevant cases,this article finds that when BITs provide the right of states to give joint interpretation,most tribunals recognize its binding effect while a small number of tribunals choose not to recognize it,and analyze the following factors:whether the joint interpretation is a violation of jus cogens or customary international law;whether the joint interpretation is a de facto amendment of the BIT;whether the joint interpretation infringes rights of investors;and whether the joint interpretation violates the due process principle.Based on above analysis,the article suggests China to add in its future BITs the wording of"the joint interpretation in binding on tribunals",to issue a joint interpretation regarding ambiguous wording before a dispute happens,and to issue a joint interpretation in a less formal format compared to that of amendment.