論國際投資仲裁庭與內國法院平衡關係之建構

On the Construction of a Balanced Relationship Between Investment Arbitral Tribunals and National Courts

程夢珂(Mengke Cheng)

指導教授 ： 林彩瑜

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700618

摘要

投資仲裁庭與內國法院之間關係十分複雜：首先，投資仲裁庭與內國法院均為國際投資法中重要的爭端解決機構，二者在管轄權問題上處於競爭關係；其次，投資仲裁庭與內國法院均具有審查對方行為的權力，內國法院有權撤銷、不予承認與執行仲裁判斷，投資仲裁庭有權審查內國法院違反國際投資協定的行為；最後，在某些問題上，投資仲裁庭與內國法院之間又必須進行合作。隨著國際投資仲裁的發展，仲裁庭一方面不斷擴大自己的權力，另一方面也遭遇了諸多的質疑。在此背景下，投資仲裁庭與內國法院之間的競爭與衝突加劇，對國際投資法與內國法秩序帶來了一定消極的影響，因此如何平衡投資仲裁庭與內國法院的關係至關重要。
窮盡當地救濟原則雖然可以避免投資仲裁庭和內國法院在場域選擇時出現的衝突，但大部分國際投資協定均未明文規定這項原則，取而代之的是等待期條款和岔路條款。然而，在仲裁庭目前的解釋方法下，等待期條款與岔路條款的功能十分有限，場域選擇時的衝突並不能得到有效解決。
除此之外，投資契約中的部分條款也有可能引發仲裁庭與法院之間的管轄權衝突。由於國際投資協定中對爭端解決機制適用範圍的規定過於寬泛，傘狀條款的表述也較為模糊，部分仲裁庭主張自己有權審理契約爭議。當投資仲裁庭根據條約規定對契約爭議行使管轄權時，內國法院根據契約中的爭端解決條款主張專屬管轄權，二者便出現了管轄權衝突。
內國法院在臨時措施與仲裁判斷之審查的問題上也易與仲裁庭產生衝突。雖然國際條約與仲裁法對內國法院的審查行為作出了明確的限制，但仍保留了極大的自由裁量權。法院在行使自由裁量權的時候並未形成統一的標準，有時會過多地介入仲裁程序的實體性內容。
與之相應，投資仲裁庭臨時措施以及審查內國法院行為的權力也十分巨大。仲裁庭可以發佈臨時措施干預內國法院的司法程序，甚至包括商事破產程序以及刑事訴訟程序。仲裁庭不僅可以審查法院程序上的不當行為，也可以審理法院作出的實體判決。仲裁庭的干預與介入引起了內國法院的強烈不滿，也為仲裁庭帶來了更多的質疑與批評。
為了緩和投資仲裁庭與內國法院的衝突，本文提出可以參考國際投資協定中的仲裁員行為準則，為投資仲裁庭與內國法院建立一套行為準則。本文在結論部分從行為準則之基本原則和具體規則兩大部分著手，勾畫該行為準則的基本內容，以期為仲裁庭與內國法院在處理二者之衝突時提供參考依據。
綜上所述，投資仲裁庭與內國法院之間的關係，並非只是兩個地位平等的爭端解決機構之間的合作與衝突，也是國際法秩序與內國法秩序之間交融互動的縮影。仲裁庭與法院在處理彼此關係的時候，要考慮到對國際投資法以及內國司法體系的影響。除此之外，國家必須清楚地意識到，除立法權和行政權外，一國之司法權也會受到國際投資仲裁的衝擊。因此，只有建立良好的互動機制，才有利於國際投資環境的可持續發展。

關鍵字

投資仲裁庭 ； 內國法院 ； 管轄權衝突 ； 臨時措施 ； 國際投資協定 ； 紐約公約 ； ICSID公約 ； 行為準則

並列摘要

The relationship between investment arbitral tribunals and national courts has long been a complex issue in international investment law. On one hand, the cooperation between them is necessary for the efficiency and effectiveness of investment arbitration, especially with regard to the enforcement of provisional measures and awards. On the other hand, the jurisdictional competition between the two dispute settlement mechanisms occurs too frequently and leads to great concern about parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions. What’s more, the mutual scrutiny of tribunals and courts increases the tension and conflicts between them. Since each enjoys the power to review decisions or actions made by the other, it is hard to define the boundary of intervention in the other’s proceedings. The purpose of this article is to present a broad overview of the interaction between international tribunals and national courts, and to propose an establishment of a code of conduct for the construction of balanced relationship between them.
The discussion is divided into three main parts. First of all, this thesis will focus on the jurisdictional competition and parallel proceedings issue. With limited effects of the principle of exhaustion of local remedies and fork-in-the-road clause in international investment agreements, parallel proceedings between tribunals and courts are inevitable. Although the tribunals are entitled to deal with the treaty claims, they still claim jurisdiction on contract claims under certain circumstances, such as umbrella clause. As a result, the conflicting dispute settlement clauses in contract and treaty bring about competitive jurisdictions in contractual claims.
Secondly, this thesis will examine the conflicts on provisional measures. There is no doubt that courts have the power to enforce the provisional relief as well as granting one at the request of investors and host states, but sometimes their involvement tends to hinder the arbitral proceedings rather than supporting them. On the contrary, the tribunals have shown an increasing willingness to grant provisional measures to suspend and interrupt the domestic judicial process, which even includes criminal proceedings.
Finally, the mutual scrutiny of tribunals and courts will be presented to explore which standards of review are employed and how to draw the boundary between the tribunals and courts. The self-contained nature of ICSID arbitration provides that courts have little discretion to review the arbitral decisions for the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards. By contrast, in non-ICSID arbitration, the courts situated in the seat of arbitration play a significant and active role by setting aside the decisions of arbitral tribunals. From the perspective of tribunals’ review on courts, it’s clear that host states should be responsible for the conducts of domestic courts despite the independence of the judicial branch. Over the past decades, however, investment arbitrators have demonstrated a tendency to serve as a de facto court of appeal for national court, which may challenge the independency of the courts and the judicial sovereignty of host state.
It’s shown that the conflicts between investment arbitral tribunals and national courts reflect the need for the establishment of a mechanism to harmonize the relationship between them. The function of the code of conduct is to guide arbitrators and judges in case of conflicts between two proceedings and to contracture a balanced relationship between investment arbitral tribunals and national courts. To achieve this objective, some basic principles and values, such as the respect of state’s sovereignty and freedom of contract, constitute the foundation of code of conduct.

並列關鍵字

International Investment Tribunals ； National Courts ； Parallel Proceedings ； Provisional Measures ； International Investment Agreements ； New York Convention ； ICSID Convention ； Code of Conduct

參考文獻

2. BISHOP, R. DOAK (2009), ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS AGAINST SOVEREIGNS

4. BORN, GARY (2009), BORN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

5. BRABANDERE, ERIC DE (2014), INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION AS PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW : PROCEDURAL ASPECTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6. CARTER, JAMES H. & JOHN FELLAS (2013), INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN NEW YORK

9. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CONGRESS (2007), INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 2006 : BACK TO BASICS?