殊途何以同归——论国际投资法移植WTO一般例外条款的实践困难与突破

Different Routes to the Same End:Unravelling the Paradox of Interpreting WTO-Style General Exceptions in International Investment Law

作为两个独立的领域,国际投资法和国际贸易法的规则与制度体系始终平行发展。近期,为平衡投资保护与东道国管制,越来越多的国际投资协定移植了WTO一般例外条款。然而,一般例外条款的国际投资仲裁初步实践显著偏离了缔约国的造法意图。仲裁庭不仅回避了具体的构成要件分析,且误读了一般例外条款的“一般”和“例外”属性,以致不当限制其适用范围与法律效果。究其原因,一般例外条款在造法层面的范式突破与仲裁庭的路径依赖出现了割裂。一方面,一般例外条款引入了与投资保护相冲突的规范目的和利益平衡式的裁判方法。另一方面,鉴于投资者与东道国争端解决机制的制度设计、裁判员群体特征,仲裁庭在条约解释上偏好客观目的解释、司法能动和排斥系统整合,阻碍了一般例外条款的功能实现。未来仲裁庭或将借鉴WTO法律实践以提升规则解释的确定性和正当性。这不仅更契合缔约国的造法意图,而且有条约解释规则的支持。然而,仲裁庭可能仅仅在形式上援引WTO判例,而忽视司法遵让、动态解释等裁判理念,或因有限的实务经验、固有偏见而难以恰当地将规则适用于个案。有鉴于此,缔约国需审慎设计“WTO型例外”的措辞,以对仲裁庭有拘束力的方式澄清潜在的解释争议。

The rules and institutions of international investment law and international trade law have traditionally evolved separately and independently.Recently,an increasing number of International Investment Agreements have transplanted WTO-style general exceptions to balance investment protection with the regulatory autonomy of host states.However,arbitral tribunals'interpretation of this clause has significantly deviated from state parties'expectations.The tribunals have circumvented a thorough examination of the clause's criteria,misconstrued its"general"and"exceptional"aspects,and unduly restricted its scope and legal effects.This deviation stems from a disconnection between state parties'shift towards a new rule-making paradigm and arbitral tribunals'path dependency.On the one hand,the introduction of general exceptions brings a variety of competing objectives other than the singular,underlined investment protection and the balancing approach unfamiliar to many investment arbitrators.On the other hand,the institutional and sociological characteristics of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System incline tribunals towards objective interpretation and judicial activism,resisting systemic integration,thereby defeating the purpose of transplanting the general exception.Future tribunals may look to WTO jurisprudence to enhance the certainty and legitimacy of general exception interpretation and better align with the intentions of state parties,which is also justified by the doctrines of treaty interpretation.However,tribunals may formally refer to WTO jurisprudence without embracing its underlying philosophies,such as judicial deference and dynamic interpretation.Furthermore,tribunals may inappropriately apply general exceptions due to their limited experiences and inherent biases.To control these risks,state parties are advised to carefully craft the wording of WTO-style general exceptions and reduce uncertainties by issuing clarifications binding on the tribunals.