论《华盛顿公约》第26条的适用-国际法专业论文.docxVIP

I I 摘 要 《华盛顿公约》第26条作为南北矛盾相互妥协的产物，作出了与传统国际法 中东道国当地救济适用规则完全相悖的规定。该条在规定中心仲裁管辖权排他性 的同时，将东道国当地救济的选择适用作为中心仲裁的限制条件，但东道国当地 救济必须在有关国家明确提有此种要求时才能得以适用，否则即视为放弃。 然而，在公约第26条的适用过程中，尤其是20世纪90年代中期以来，缔约国 尤其是发展中国家为了更好地吸引外资、推动本国经济发展，开始大量签订全盘 接受中心仲裁管辖权的双边或多边投资条约。而中心也日益倾向于通过扩大解释 自身管辖权条件、扩大最惠国条款与“保护伞条款”的适用范围以及对“岔道口” 条款予以规避等方式以排斥东道国当地救济,从而扩大自身仲裁管辖权。这些都 使得一旦出现投资纠纷，东道国则极易被外国投资者诉诸中心。 面对上述问题，应从中心和缔约国两方面采取应对策略。就中心而言，应对 中心仲裁机制进行改革，如增加中心仲裁程序透明度、设立上诉机构、启用合并 审理制度；就缔约国而言，应理性对待公约第26条，在签订双边或多边投资条约 时保留优先行使东道国当地救济的权利，不盲目扩大接受中心仲裁管辖权的范 围。 当前，我国已签署并批准了《华盛顿公约》，但公约第 26 条在我国涉外投资 的适用过程中遇到诸多问题，如我国全盘接受中心仲裁管辖权的倾向日趋明显， 我国对外签订的国际投资条约措辞不严、内容要求不一、给予外国投资者的待遇 较高，以及我国至今没有制定与中心仲裁相配套的国内法措施，等等。对此，我 国应在原则上坚持东道国当地救济，并在某些特殊情形下适度放弃东道国当地救 济，允许外国投资者提请中心仲裁解决。 关键字：国际投资争端；仲裁管辖权；东道国当地救济 II II Abstract The article 26 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (abbreviation Washington Convention or Convention below) is the product of mutual compromise of conflicts between the North and the South. The application rule of local remedy provided in this article is completely different from that in traditional international law. The article provides that ICSID has exclusive jurisdiction of arbitration to investment disputes between states and foreign investors. Meanwhile, it provides that the countries concerned may choose local remedy as a prerequisite to accept the arbitration of ICSID. However, such a request must be made clearly, or the application of local remedy would be deemed to give up. However, in practice of applying the article 26 of the Convention, especilly since the mid-90’s of the 20th century, in order to better attract foreign investment and promote national economic development, the contracting countries especilly developing countries began to sign a large number of bilateral or multilaterl investment treaties and in most of them they made a comprehensive acception to the jurisdiction of ICSID. And ICSID also has an tendency of exclusion of local remedies in or