晚近美国对国际投资争端仲裁机制态度的转变——以NAFTA为例

Some Comments on Recent U.S.A.’s Attitude towards the International Investment Dispute Arbitration——NAFTA as an example

研究'主权淡化论者'的两面性有助于更好地维护经济主权原则。在以往同发展中国家签订的双边投资协定中,美国从资本输出国的角度极力主张扩大对本国投资者的保护,极力限制缔约对方国家主权的行使。然而,在NAFTA体制内,美国作为资本输入国面临的投资仲裁压力日益显现。为此,美国在NAFTA体制内开始强调从资本输入国的立场上考虑保护本国利益,并从'事前'、'事中'保护东道国权益设置了若干'机关'。以往被美国视为'不合时宜'的发展中国家的主张,反而被美国用来质疑NAFTA投资争端解决机制的合理性。美国对国际投资仲裁态度的转变有力地表明了'主权淡化论'的虚伪性。

In need of guarding the principle of economic sovereignty,it is helpful to study the double faces of those who advocate"dilution of sovereignty".In the previous bilateral investment treaties between U.S.A.and developing countries,from the perspective of capital-outflow country,U.S.A.tried every means to enhance the protection of the American investors’interests and restrict the opposing country to exercise its sovereignty.However,under NAFTA,U.S.A.was confronted with an increasing pressure of international investment dispute arbitration when as a capital-inflow country.Therefore,U.S.A.’s attitude changed and emphasized on protecting its interests from the perspective of capital-inflow country under NAFTA.It used the opinions by developing countries,which it once regarded as"outdated",to doubt the rationality of the investment dispute settlement mechanism of NAFTA.Even in the NAFTA treaty itself,U.S.A.also designed some provisions to protect the investment-host state in phases of"pre-dispute"and"in course of dispute".This kind of conversion effectively indicates the deceptiveness of the viewpoint of"dilution of sovereignty".