论禁诉令在国际投资仲裁中的运用

Study on the Application of Anti-Suit Injunction in International Investment Arbitration

禁诉令在国际投资仲裁中的运用独具特色,它集中彰显了国际法治与国内法治的多维复杂关系。仲裁庭通常将仲裁规则中的临时措施条款作为发布禁诉令的规范基础。但禁诉令并不能与一般临时措施完全等同,仲裁庭对国内法律程序的干预应仅以保障国家善意履行条约义务、保护投资者诉诸仲裁的权利为宗旨。尽管理论上仲裁庭均宣称临时措施不仅可用于维护ICSID仲裁的排他性,亦可用于维护当事方的程序性权利(即不恶化争端的权利和维护仲裁程序完整性的权利),但在实践中,对于国内平行程序,以投资条约为基础的仲裁庭几乎不存在运用禁诉令维护仲裁排他性的现实需求;而与仲裁争端不相同但相关的国内法律程序,特别是刑事程序则可能会受到仲裁庭的干预,此时仲裁庭运用禁诉令维护仲裁程序的完整性,以及在特定履行类诉求中维护不恶化争端的权利。其背后的根源是投资仲裁庭为维护行业利益,人为割裂国际法体系与国内法体系,忽略国内法院作为与仲裁机构平等的争端解决机构的角色,并一味强调仲裁管辖权的至高无上。但不可否认,针对国内刑事程序运用禁诉令也体现了投资仲裁对国内法治的矫正功能,但该功能因受制于投资条约的授权范围而具有局限性。

The use of anti-suit injunctions in international investment arbitration is unique,because it highlights the multi-dimensional and complex relationship between international rule of law and domestic rule of law.Arbitral tribunals usually regard the interim measures clause in arbitration rules as the normative basis for issuing anti-suit injunctions.However,anti-suit injunctions can not be fully equated with general interim measures,and arbitral tribunal's intervention in domestic legal proceedings should only aim to ensure the good faith performance of treaty obligations by the State and ensure investors'right of access to arbitration.In theory,arbitral tribunals claim that interim measures can be used not only to safeguard the exclusivity of ICSID arbitration,but also to safeguard the procedural rights of the parties,including the right not to aggravate the dispute and the right of procedural integrity.However,in practice,investment treaty-based arbitral tribunals hardly have the practical need to issue anti-suit injunctions to intervene in domestic parallel proceedings and maintain the exclusivity of arbitration,but instead issue anti-suit injunctions to ensure the procedural integrity of arbitration in domestic legal procedures that are different from but related to arbitral disputes,especially criminal proceedings and the right not to aggravate the dispute in cases of specific performance claims.The root cause behind this is that in order to safeguard the interests of the industry,investment arbitration tribunals artificially separate the international legal system and the domestic legal system,ignore the role of domestic courts as dispute resolution institutions on an equal footing with arbitration institutions,and blindly emphasize the supremacy of arbitral jurisdiction.Nonetheless,it is undeniable that by issuing anti-suit injunctions vis-dvis domestic criminal proceedings,investment arbitration follows a corrective justice rationale,which is limited by the scope of the mandate of the investment treaty though.