在投资者与国家间仲裁程序中应用透明度规则的国际经验

Pub Date : 2020-08-17 DOI:10.1515/ael-2019-0072
Ziad Kh. Al Enizi, W. F. Mahameed
{"title":"在投资者与国家间仲裁程序中应用透明度规则的国际经验","authors":"Ziad Kh. Al Enizi, W. F. Mahameed","doi":"10.1515/ael-2019-0072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Following modern worldwide trend of transparency, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, which were incorporated in UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Convention on Transparency (the Mauritius Convention) adopted later was an attempt to resolve the situation with treaties, which were concluded prior to April 1, 2014. As soon as few previous studies covered this issue, the research is aimed to assess the extent to which the Rules on Transparency are applicable and inevitable. By way of qualitative analysis of documents covering the transparency issue in investor-state treaties and arbitration was revealed that like the treaties concluded after April 1, 2014, which were automatically covered by the scope of application, the treaties made prior to that date were dropped out of the Rules on Transparency and the parties thereto have to express an explicit will to apply the Rules on Transparency. The Mauritius Convention designated to resolve this problem still requires a member state to join the Convention to make the Rules applicable to all treaties with such member state. On the other hand, both discussed documents provide the parties with options to avoid transparency in arbitration. Thus, despite increasing mandatory transparency in national legislations, the transparency of investor-state arbitration proceedings remains the matter of a good will of the parties. This study provides the foundation for stakeholders to conduct investor-state agreements as well as arbitration processes in line with transparency. The issue of transparency in investor-state agreements and arbitration processes in different countries can be illustrated in the following studies based on this study.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Experience of Applying Transparency Rules in Arbitration Processes Between Investors and States\",\"authors\":\"Ziad Kh. Al Enizi, W. F. Mahameed\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ael-2019-0072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Following modern worldwide trend of transparency, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, which were incorporated in UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Convention on Transparency (the Mauritius Convention) adopted later was an attempt to resolve the situation with treaties, which were concluded prior to April 1, 2014. As soon as few previous studies covered this issue, the research is aimed to assess the extent to which the Rules on Transparency are applicable and inevitable. By way of qualitative analysis of documents covering the transparency issue in investor-state treaties and arbitration was revealed that like the treaties concluded after April 1, 2014, which were automatically covered by the scope of application, the treaties made prior to that date were dropped out of the Rules on Transparency and the parties thereto have to express an explicit will to apply the Rules on Transparency. The Mauritius Convention designated to resolve this problem still requires a member state to join the Convention to make the Rules applicable to all treaties with such member state. On the other hand, both discussed documents provide the parties with options to avoid transparency in arbitration. Thus, despite increasing mandatory transparency in national legislations, the transparency of investor-state arbitration proceedings remains the matter of a good will of the parties. This study provides the foundation for stakeholders to conduct investor-state agreements as well as arbitration processes in line with transparency. The issue of transparency in investor-state agreements and arbitration processes in different countries can be illustrated in the following studies based on this study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0072\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:顺应当今世界透明度趋势,联合国国际贸易法委员会(贸易法委员会)通过了《贸易法委员会投资人与国家间基于条约仲裁透明度规则》,并将其纳入《贸易法委员会仲裁规则》。后来通过的《透明度公约》(《毛里求斯公约》)试图通过条约解决这一问题,该公约是在2014年4月1日之前缔结的。由于以前很少有研究涉及这一问题,因此这项研究的目的是评估《透明度规则》在多大程度上适用和不可避免。通过对投资者与国家间条约和仲裁中涉及透明度问题的文件进行定性分析发现,与2014年4月1日以后缔结的条约自动纳入适用范围一样,2014年4月1日之前缔结的条约被排除在《透明度规则》之外,其当事人必须明确表示愿意适用《透明度规则》。旨在解决这一问题的《毛里求斯公约》仍然要求一个成员国加入《公约》,使《规则》适用于与该成员国签订的所有条约。另一方面,两份讨论的文件都为双方提供了避免仲裁透明度的选择。因此,尽管国家立法的强制性透明度越来越高,投资者-国家仲裁程序的透明度仍然是各方善意的问题。本研究为利益相关者开展符合透明度的投资者-国家协议以及仲裁程序提供了基础。不同国家投资者-国家协议和仲裁程序的透明度问题可以在以下基于本研究的研究中得到说明。
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
International Experience of Applying Transparency Rules in Arbitration Processes Between Investors and States
Abstract Following modern worldwide trend of transparency, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, which were incorporated in UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Convention on Transparency (the Mauritius Convention) adopted later was an attempt to resolve the situation with treaties, which were concluded prior to April 1, 2014. As soon as few previous studies covered this issue, the research is aimed to assess the extent to which the Rules on Transparency are applicable and inevitable. By way of qualitative analysis of documents covering the transparency issue in investor-state treaties and arbitration was revealed that like the treaties concluded after April 1, 2014, which were automatically covered by the scope of application, the treaties made prior to that date were dropped out of the Rules on Transparency and the parties thereto have to express an explicit will to apply the Rules on Transparency. The Mauritius Convention designated to resolve this problem still requires a member state to join the Convention to make the Rules applicable to all treaties with such member state. On the other hand, both discussed documents provide the parties with options to avoid transparency in arbitration. Thus, despite increasing mandatory transparency in national legislations, the transparency of investor-state arbitration proceedings remains the matter of a good will of the parties. This study provides the foundation for stakeholders to conduct investor-state agreements as well as arbitration processes in line with transparency. The issue of transparency in investor-state agreements and arbitration processes in different countries can be illustrated in the following studies based on this study.
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
×
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