投资条约仲裁中私人投资者的双重国籍:行使属人管辖权的潜在障碍?

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-04-26 DOI:10.1093/icsidreview/siaa054
Chitransh Vijayvergia
{"title":"投资条约仲裁中私人投资者的双重国籍:行使属人管辖权的潜在障碍?","authors":"Chitransh Vijayvergia","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siaa054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n One of the fundamental objectives of international investment agreements (IIAs) is to protect the rights and interests of foreign investors in the territory of a contracting State. Why, then, have tribunals often exercised jurisdiction ratione personae over the claims of dual nationals against their own State? The answer lies in the silence of IIAs on the matter of dual nationals. Such agreements have failed expressly to mention dual nationals in their definitions of ‘investor’ or ‘national’, which has created lacunae that are open to interpretation. Tribunals have often fallen back on international law to fill these gaps and accurately to determine the nationality of an investor’s claims. They have taken into consideration the text of the IIAs, the text of institutional rules and the general principles of international law. The principle of ‘dominant and effective nationality’, as propounded in the Nottebohm case, has made frequent appearances in such interpretation processes. However, the application of this principle has been inconsistent over time, with different tribunals taking different stances. In this article, the author traces this varied approaches of tribunals. In doing so, he analyses the text of and the awards delivered in disputes arising out of the Algiers Declaration, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules and various bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Based on this analysis, the author proposes several changes that States should consider in the future negotiation of BITs to restrict a claim by a dual national against its State of nationality.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual Nationality of a Private Investor in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Potential Barrier to the Exercise of Jurisdiction Ratione Personae?\",\"authors\":\"Chitransh Vijayvergia\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icsidreview/siaa054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n One of the fundamental objectives of international investment agreements (IIAs) is to protect the rights and interests of foreign investors in the territory of a contracting State. Why, then, have tribunals often exercised jurisdiction ratione personae over the claims of dual nationals against their own State? The answer lies in the silence of IIAs on the matter of dual nationals. Such agreements have failed expressly to mention dual nationals in their definitions of ‘investor’ or ‘national’, which has created lacunae that are open to interpretation. Tribunals have often fallen back on international law to fill these gaps and accurately to determine the nationality of an investor’s claims. They have taken into consideration the text of the IIAs, the text of institutional rules and the general principles of international law. The principle of ‘dominant and effective nationality’, as propounded in the Nottebohm case, has made frequent appearances in such interpretation processes. However, the application of this principle has been inconsistent over time, with different tribunals taking different stances. In this article, the author traces this varied approaches of tribunals. In doing so, he analyses the text of and the awards delivered in disputes arising out of the Algiers Declaration, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules and various bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Based on this analysis, the author proposes several changes that States should consider in the future negotiation of BITs to restrict a claim by a dual national against its State of nationality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siaa054\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siaa054","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

国际投资协定的基本目标之一是保护缔约国领土内外国投资者的权利和利益。那么,为什么法庭经常对双重国籍者对其本国提出的索赔行使属人管辖权呢?答案在于国际投资机构在双重国籍问题上保持沉默。这些协议没有在其“投资者”或“国民”的定义中明确提及双重国籍,这造成了可供解释的空白。法庭往往依靠国际法来填补这些空白,并准确地确定投资者索赔的国籍。它们考虑到了国际投资协定的案文、机构规则的案文和国际法的一般原则。在这样的解释过程中,Nottebohm案中提出的“主导和有效国籍”原则经常出现。然而,这一原则的适用一直不一致,不同的法庭采取不同的立场。在本文中,作者追溯了法庭的这种不同做法。在此过程中,他分析了《阿尔及尔宣言》、《北美自由贸易协定》、《美国-墨西哥-加拿大协定》、《解决国家和其他国家国民之间投资争端公约》(《ICSID公约》)、《多米尼加共和国-中美洲自由贸易协定》(DR-CAFTA)、联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)仲裁规则和各种双边投资条约。在此基础上,作者提出了各国在今后的双边投资协定谈判中应考虑的几点变化,以限制双重国籍者对其国籍国的索赔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dual Nationality of a Private Investor in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Potential Barrier to the Exercise of Jurisdiction Ratione Personae?
One of the fundamental objectives of international investment agreements (IIAs) is to protect the rights and interests of foreign investors in the territory of a contracting State. Why, then, have tribunals often exercised jurisdiction ratione personae over the claims of dual nationals against their own State? The answer lies in the silence of IIAs on the matter of dual nationals. Such agreements have failed expressly to mention dual nationals in their definitions of ‘investor’ or ‘national’, which has created lacunae that are open to interpretation. Tribunals have often fallen back on international law to fill these gaps and accurately to determine the nationality of an investor’s claims. They have taken into consideration the text of the IIAs, the text of institutional rules and the general principles of international law. The principle of ‘dominant and effective nationality’, as propounded in the Nottebohm case, has made frequent appearances in such interpretation processes. However, the application of this principle has been inconsistent over time, with different tribunals taking different stances. In this article, the author traces this varied approaches of tribunals. In doing so, he analyses the text of and the awards delivered in disputes arising out of the Algiers Declaration, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules and various bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Based on this analysis, the author proposes several changes that States should consider in the future negotiation of BITs to restrict a claim by a dual national against its State of nationality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
27.30%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Australia’s Ambivalence Again Around Investor-State Arbitration: Comparisons with Europe and Implications for Asia The Duty of Arbitrators to Raise Suspected Corruption or to Investigate Poorly Particularized Allegations of Corruption Contextual Impartiality: A New Approach to Assessing Impartiality in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration? Impartiality and the Construction of Trust in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1