国际投资争端解决中条约解释的一致性: 实践冲突、价值反思与改革目标

The Consistency of Treaty Interpretation in International Investment Dispute Settlement:Conflicts in Practice,Rethinking of the Value and Reform Objectives

条约解释缺乏一致性是国际投资争端解决中的突出问题,在国际投资法律规则改革发展过程中颇受关注。然而在实践中,国际投资仲裁庭与主权国家对于条约解释的一致性问题认知并不统一。法律解释过程中的固有矛盾与条约解释规则的不确定性导致不一致的条约解释结果难以避免,而国际投资法律体系的碎片化与价值冲突加剧了这一现象。国际投资争端解决中,对条约作出一致解释虽具有保障平等、稳定和可预见性的重要价值,但对条约解释一致性的追求也不应损害条约解释的准确性,对于条约解释一致性缺失给ISDS机制造成的影响也需客观评估。国际投资条约解释不一致现象可以划分为对相同条约条款的不一致解释和对相似条约条款的不一致解释,前者需要得到及时而有效的矫正,后者则是国际投资法律体系的正常现象,但需对双重救济下的条约解释冲突加以防范。

The lack of consistency in treaty interpretation is a prominent problem in international investment dispute settlement that has attracted much attention in the process of reform and development of international investment legal rules.In practice,however,arbitral tribunals and sovereign states have different views on the consistency of treaty interpretation in the settlement of international investment disputes.The inherent contradictions in the process of law interpretation and the uncertainty of the rules of treaty interpretation have led to the inevitable results of inconsistent treaty interpretation,while the fragmentation of international investment legal system and value conflict have aggravated this inconsistency.In the process of international investment dispute settlement,although consistent interpretation of treaties has the important value of ensuring equality,stability and predictability,the pursuit of consistency should not undermine the accuracy of treaty interpretation.The impact of the lack of consistency in treaty interpretation on the ISDS mechanism also needs to be objectively evaluated.The inconsistency of investment treaty interpretation can be divided into inconsistency in the interpretations of identical treaty provisions and inconsistency in the interpretations of similar treaty provisions.The former needs timely and effective correction.The latter is a normal phenomenon under the current international investment legal system and arbitration mechanism,but the conflict of treaty interpretation in double remedies needs to be prevented.