发布时间： Fri Dec 14 11:21:20 CST 2018 供稿人：章曦
本文原载于《商法》2018年11月|第9辑第10期，北京仲裁委员会授权转发。
与商事仲裁相似，国际投资仲裁中东道国和投资者的仲裁合意是仲裁庭管辖权的基础。与商事仲裁不同之处在于，东道国与投资者之间的仲裁是一种无相对性仲裁（Arbitration without privity），即投资者无需与东道国订立合同即可依据两个或多个主权国家之间所签订的国际条约向东道国提起仲裁。在双边或多边投资条约中，各国承诺对来自缔约国的投资者给予保护，并赋予投资者在发生争议时不依靠母国的外交保护即可直接向东道国提起仲裁的权利。国际投资仲裁与商事仲裁的本质不同使得投资者与东道国之间达成仲裁合意的方式呈现多样化。本文将介绍国际投资仲裁中，东道国和投资者达成仲裁合意的几种形式。
直接约定。尽管投资者无需与东道国之间订立合同即可提起仲裁，但这并不妨碍双方通过签订投资协议（investment agreement）直接达成仲裁合意。双方的仲裁意思表示并不需要记录在同一份文件中。例如，投资者可以将其同意仲裁的意思表示写入投资申请（investment application）,一旦东道国的主管部门批准投资者的投资申请，双方就达成了仲裁合意。此外，投资者和东道国也可以在投资协议中，通过引用双边投资条约（bilateral investment treaty）的方式将条约中关于仲裁的约定并入投资协议而达成仲裁合意。
双边或多边条约。投资者和东道国通过双边投资条约达成仲裁合意是最常见的一种形式。绝大多数双边投资条约中，缔约国都会约定如果与作为另一国国民的投资者发生 争议，同意通过仲裁解决。因此，对于东道国而言，双边投资条约中有关同意仲裁的约定就是一份针对另一缔约国投资者的持续的公开要约。投资者可以在之后的任何时间作出承诺以达成仲裁合意。关于投资者承诺的方式，实践中通常认为，在争议发生后，投资者向东道国发出触发信（triggering letter）或者提出仲裁申请即可达到承诺的效果。
一些多边条约中也会约定，缔约国同意将未来发生的投资争议提交仲裁。例如北美自由贸易协定和能源宪章条约都包含了缔约 国同意仲裁的要约，投资者可以通过承诺的方式与缔约国达成仲裁合意。但需要说明的是，《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》（也称《华盛顿公约》）中并不包含缔约国一方同意仲裁的意思表示。公约在序言部分明确宣告不能仅仅由于缔约国批准、接受或核准该公约这一事实而不经其同意就认为该 缔约国具有将任何特定的争端交付调解或仲裁的义务。
东道国的法律规定。东道国还可以通过国内立法的形式向投资者发出同意仲裁的要约。例如阿尔巴尼亚1993 年外国投资法就明确规定，外国投资者可以通过仲裁解决投资纠纷，阿尔巴尼亚共和国同意将争议提交 ICSID 仲裁。该法的规定即阿尔巴尼亚共和国的要约，投资者可以通过承诺的方式与阿尔巴尼亚政府达成仲裁合意。与双边投资条约不同之处在于，东道国在投资者接受要约之前，可以在任何时间单方废除法律并撤销其同意仲裁的要约。因此对于投资者而言，尽早发出承诺以达成仲裁合意是非常必要的。
最惠国待遇。实践中，一些投资者还试图 通过双边投资条约中的最惠国待遇条款引入东道国与第三国条约中同意仲裁的意思表示，以此来建立管辖权或是获取更好要约。 例如在Plama 诉 Bulgaria一案中，投资者 Palma Consortium Limited（塞浦路斯国民）试图通过塞浦路斯与保加利亚双边条约中的最惠国待遇条款，引入保加利亚与芬兰双边投资条约中保加利亚同意 ICSID 仲裁的意思表示。仲裁庭最终认为，除非基础条约中的最惠国待遇条款清晰无误的约定缔约国同意引入其他条约中的争议解决条款， 否则不能通过最惠国待遇条款部分或全部引入其他条约中有关争议解决的约定。
作者：北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心 仲裁秘书章曦
Like commercial arbitration, consent from a host state and an investor is the basis for a tribunal’s jurisdiction in international investment arbitration. However, unlike the commercial one, investment arbitration between a host state and an investor is without privity. This means an investor can bring an arbitration case against the host state without a contract, but will have to rely on the investment treaty signed between two or more sovereign states. Under the bilateral or multilateral investment treaties, each contracting state agrees that it will protect foreign investors from another contracting state. For its side, the investor is entitled to bring a claim directly against the host state without seeking diplomatic protection from its home state. The difference between commercial and international investment arbitration resulted in the diversified method for an investor to reach consensus to arbitration with the host state. This article will introduce methods of consent between a host state and an investor in international investment arbitration.
Consent by direct agreement. Although an investor can bring an arbitration case against a host state without a contact, it does not prevent the parties recording their consent to arbitration directly through an investment agreement. The agreement on consent between the parties need not be recorded in a single instrument. For example, an investment application from an investor may provide for arbitration. If the competent authority of the host state approves the application, the parties have consent for arbitration. In addition, a reference in an agreement between the parties to a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) may incorporate the consent for arbitration contained in that BIT in the agreement.
Consent through BITs or multilateral treaties. Consent through BITs or multilateral treaties is the most common way to establish jurisdiction. A vast majority of BITs contain clauses referring to investment arbitration should there be any dispute. For the host state, the consent to arbitration in the BIT is a standing open offer to the investor of the other contacting state. An investor may accept that offer at any time. It is an established practice that an investor can accept an offer of consent by initiating an arbitration proceeding or sending a triggering letter to the host state.
A number of multilateral treaties also offer consent to arbitration for future disputes. For instance, both the North America Free Trade Agreement and the Energy Charter Treaty offer consent to arbitration. An investor could accept that offer to achieve bilateral consent with a host state. It should be noted that Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (also known as the Washington Convention) does not offer consent for arbitration. In the preamble, it states that “no Contracting State shall by the mere fact of its ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention and without its consent be deemed to be under any obligation to submit any particular dispute to conciliation or arbitration”.
Consent through host state legislation. The host state may also offer consent to arbitration to a foreign investor in its legislation. For instance, Albanian Law on Foreign investment of 1993 states that the foreign investor may submit the dispute for resolution and the Republic of Albania consent to the submission to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). This provision offers Albania’s consent to arbitration and the investor can accept this offer to reach the consensus to arbitration with the state of Albanian. The consent to arbitration offered in legislation is different from the one in the BIT. The state may repeal its law and unilaterally withdraw the offer at any time. Therefore, it is necessary for the investor to accept the offer to consent to arbitration through a written communication as early as possible.
Consent under most-favoured-nation clauses. In practice, there have been investors who try to import the consent to arbitration the host state offers in a treaty with a third state through the MFN clause in order to have a better offer or to establish jurisdiction. For instance, in Plama v Bulgaria, Palma Consortium Limited (a Cyprus entity), the claimant had attempted to use the MFN clause in the BIT between Bulgaria and Cyprus to avail itself of the Bulgaria- Finland BIT in order to establish ICSID’s jurisdiction. The tribunal reached the conclusion that an MFN provision in a basic treaty did not incorporate by reference dispute settlement provisions in whole or in part set forth in another treaty, unless the MFN provision in the basic treaty leaves no doubt that the contacting parties intend to incorporate them.
Zhang Xi is a case manager of Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre
