The rise of self-judging essential security interest clauses in international investment agreements (also in Chinese)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The rise of self-judging essential security interest clauses in international investment agreements (also in Chinese)"

活必柯
5 years ago
Views:

clauses in international investment agreements (also in Chinese) Karl P.

1 Columbia University From the SelectedWorks of Karl P. Sauvant December, 2016 The rise of self-judging essential security interest clauses in international investment agreements (also in Chinese) Karl P. Sauvant Mevelyn Ong Katherine Lama Thor Petersen Available at:

Columbia FDI Perspectives Perspectives on topical foreign direct investment issues No. 188 December 5, 2016 Editor-in-Chief: Karl P. Sauvant (Karl.Sauvant@law.columbia.

2 Columbia FDI Perspectives Perspectives on topical foreign direct investment issues No. 188 December 5, 2016 Editor-in-Chief: Karl P. Sauvant Managing Editor: Daniel Allman The rise of self-judging essential security interest clauses in international investment agreements by Karl P. Sauvant and Mevelyn Ong, with Katherine Lama and Thor Petersen * A network of bilateral treaties and other international investment agreements (IIAs) has constructed a predictable and enforceable international investment regime. Since 1992, however, the protections offered by this regime have potentially been limited by the inclusion in IIAs of self-judging essential security interest (ESI) clauses. These clauses expressly allow a government to take measures unilaterally that it considers necessary 1 to evade treaty obligations. This Perspective presents a study of 1,861 IIAs concluded by 90 countries before early The study sought to identify the geographic and temporal spread of self-judging ESI clauses in IIAs and trends in drafting styles. It found 222 IIAs containing selfjudging ESI clauses, with the United States (US) being the first to introduce them. The US, Canada and Japan remain the leading users, followed by a growing number of Asian and Latin American countries. While the number of self-judging ESI clauses is small compared to the total number of IIAs, the proportion of IIAs with such clauses concluded in a given year has increased from negligible in 2000 to over 60% of IIAs concluded in (See charts below.) By early 2016, at least 134 countries, accounting for 99% of world outward FDI flows and stock, were bound by such clauses. Self-judging ESI clauses can be classified along two dimensions: Scope Broad clauses (127 IIAs) refer to essential security interests without further definition or limitation, giving governments wide discretion to determine what

3 constitutes their ESI. For example: Nothing in this Agreement preclude[s] a Party from applying measures that it considers necessary for the protection of its own [ESI]. 3 Narrow clauses (95 IIAs) limit self-judgment to specific subjects, typically related to furnishing certain information, but also to matters such as war or other emergencies. Occasionally, narrow clauses incorporate, by reference, or replicate, GATT art. XXI and/or GATS art. XIV bis. Strength Very strong clauses (15 IIAs) include a footnote prescribing that arbitral tribunals must respect a government s determination of its ESI: For greater certainty, if a Party invokes [ESI] the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies. 4 Strong clauses (190 IIAs) state simply that they are self-judging. Conditional clauses (17 IIAs) subject self-judgment to a requirement that measures are not applied, for example, in an arbitrary or unjustifiably discriminatory manner, or so as to avoid treaty obligations. 5 This leaves the door open for arbitral review 6 (which can be explicitly required 7 ), especially when treaties require reasons for invoking the exception. The most far-reaching clauses, conferring maximum discretion on governments to determine their own compliance with treaty obligations, are broad and very strong. Ten IIAs containing such clauses were identified, followed by 102 with broad/strong clauses and 88 with narrow/strong clauses. Except perhaps when clauses are very strong, most self-judging clauses could arguably be challenged on the basis of good faith. 8 Nonetheless, arbitral tribunals must give great deference to the judgment of governments. 9 Overall, the proliferation of self-judging ESI clauses makes IIA protections uncertain, subordinating treaty disciplines to governments self-restraint. They are likely to spread further, as governments seek to protect ESI concerns and regulatory sovereignty, and could extend beyond security to cover financial and other regulation. Broad/strong selfjudging ESI clauses are quite sweeping, creating the risk of abuses by governments. Abuses could perhaps be limited by more narrow definitions of essential security interests and clearer delineations of when exceptions can be invoked (for example, limiting them solely to national security concerns, and/or expressly providing that they cannot apply to broader interests and economic issues); explicitly stipulating good-faith requirements; incorporating a last-resort condition; requiring notification or prior reasons given to a joint committee; and/or providing for consultations with treaty counterparties before invoking an ESI clause. Ultimately, however, the clauses remain self-judging. 2

4 Although the trend described in this Perspective might be part of the much-needed rebalancing of the investment regime toward greater rights for governments, care must be taken not to undermine the rule of international investment law in the process. * Karl P. Sauvant (karlsauvant@gmail.com) is Resident Senior Fellow, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Columbia University; Mevelyn Ong (mso2121@columbia.edu) is a graduate of the Masters of Law (LL.M.) 2016 degree program at Columbia Law School; Katherine Lama (kal2208@columbia.edu) is a graduate of the Master in Public Administration (MPA) 2016 degree program at Columbia s School of International and Public Affairs; Thor Petersen (tjp2141@columbia.edu) is a J.D. candidate at Columbia Law School. The details of the study s methodology, contained in a Methodology Note, are available on request from Karl P. Sauvant. The authors are grateful to Louis-Alexis Bret, Pakwan Chuensuwankul, Katerina Florou, Camilla Gambarini, Jo En Low, Amanda Jiménez Pintón, Shawn Lim, and Carl Lundeholm for their research assistance during various stages of the project, to a great number of colleagues and officials of governments and investment promotion agencies for specific help, and to Manfred Schekulin and Stephan Schill for their comments. The authors are also grateful to Mark Kantor, Michael W. Reisman and Kenneth Vandevelde for their helpful peer reviews. The views expressed by the authors of this Perspective do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Columbia University or its partners and supporters. Columbia FDI Perspectives (ISSN ) is a peer-reviewed series. 1 Or similar formulations establishing subjective self-judgment. 2 The review drew on various databases and direct contacts with countries, but not all countries and IIAs were reviewed. 3 US-Australia FTA, art. 22.2(b). 4 See, e.g., US-Peru FTA, art Whereas the US discontinued use of such a footnote since 2007, other countries have not. 5 See, e.g., Korea-Japan BIT, art See, e.g., Japan-Mozambique BIT, art See, e.g., China-Peru FTA, art See, e.g., Kenneth Vandevelde, Of politics and markets: the shifting ideology of the BITs, International Tax & Business Lawyer, vol. 11 (1993), at p. 159; Stephan Schill and Robyn Briese, If the state considers : self-judging clauses in international dispute settlement, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. 13 (2009), pp Tribunals in investor-state arbitrations have not yet considered self-judging ESI clauses. The effect of self-judging provisions in other legal instruments (e.g., ICJ Statute, art. 36(2)) remains uncertain. See, also, Interhandel (Switzerland v. US) [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 6 (Judgment). 3

5 Figure 1. Cumulative number of IIAs signed with self-judging ESI clauses, early 2016 Source: UNCTAD IIA database for number of IIAs ( and own research. 4

6 Figure 2. Number of IIAs signed per year and number of IIAs per year with self-judging ESI clauses, Source: UNCTAD IIA database for number of IIAs ( and own research. 5

7 Figure 3. Percentage of IIAs signed with self-judging ESI clauses, by year, early 2016 Source: UNCTAD IIA database for number of IIAs ( and own research.

8 Figure 4. Cumulative number of countries with self-judging ESI clauses, Source: UNCTAD IIA database for number of IIAs ( and own research. 7

9 Table. Self-judging ESI clauses, by scope and strength Very strong selfjudging element Strong self-judging element Conditional selfjudging element Broad ESI scope Narrow ESI scope Source: Own research. 8

10 The material in this Perspective may be reprinted if accompanied by the following acknowledgment: Karl P. Sauvant and Mevelyn Ong, with Katherine Lama and Thor Petersen, The rise of self-judging essential security interest clauses in international investment agreements, Columbia FDI Perspectives, No. 188, December 5, Reprinted with permission from the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment ( A copy should kindly be sent to the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment at ccsi@law.columbia.edu. For further information, including information regarding submission to the Perspectives, please contact: Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Daniel Allman, daniel.allman@columbia.edu. The Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), a joint center of Columbia Law School and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a leading applied research center and forum dedicated to the study, practice and discussion of sustainable international investment. Our mission is to develop and disseminate practical approaches and solutions, as well as to analyze topical policy-oriented issues, in order to maximize the impact of international investment for sustainable development. The Center undertakes its mission through interdisciplinary research, advisory projects, multi-stakeholder dialogue, educational programs, and the development of resources and tools. For more information, visit us at Most recent Columbia FDI Perspectives No. 187, Jan Knoerich, Why some advanced economy firms prefer to be taken over by Chinese acquirers, November 21, No. 186, Jose Guimon, From export processing to knowledge processing: upgrading the FDI promotion toolkit, November 7, No. 185, Frank J. Garcia, Investment treaties are about justice, October 24, No. 184, Lukas Linsi, Less compelling than it seems: rethinking the relationship between aggregate FDI inflows and national competitiveness, October 10, No. 183, Karl P. Sauvant and Güneş Ünüvar, Can host countries have legitimate expectations?, September 26, All previous FDI Perspectives are available at perspectives/. 9

哥伦比亚国际投资展望哥伦比亚大学可持续投资中心 FDI 热点问题的观点系列 188 2016 年 12 月 5 日总编辑 : Karl P. Sauvant (Karl.Sauvant@law.columbia.edu) 执行编辑 : Daniel Allman (daniel.allman@columbia.edu) 国际投资协定中基于安全利益单边裁决条款的兴起 Karl P.

11 哥伦比亚国际投资展望哥伦比亚大学可持续投资中心 FDI 热点问题的观点系列年 12 月 5 日总编辑 : Karl P. Sauvant (Karl.Sauvant@law.columbia.edu) 执行编辑 : Daniel Allman (daniel.allman@columbia.edu) 国际投资协定中基于安全利益单边裁决条款的兴起 Karl P. Sauvant and Mevelyn Ong, with Katherine Lama and Thor Petersen * 双边条约与其它国际投资协定 (IIAs) 共同构建了一个可预测可实施的国际投资体制然而, 自 1992 年, 根本安全利益 (ESI) 单边裁决条款纳入 IIAs, 体制保护由此受到潜在限制该条款明确准许政府采取措施单方面其认为需要 1 以规避条约义务本文介绍了一篇截至 2016 年初来自 90 个国家 1861 份 IIAs 的研究 2 该研究旨在确定 IIAs 中 ESI 单边裁决条款的时空扩展性, 以及未来发展趋势结果表明,222 份 IIAs 包括 ESI 单边裁决条款, 美国 (US) 是首个应用国美国加拿大和日本仍是主要的使用者, 亚洲和拉丁美洲使用国家数量在逐步上升尽管相较于 IIAs 总量,ESI 单边裁决条款数量较少, 但包含该条款的 IIAs 比重由 2000 年可忽略不计上升至 2015 年 60% 以上 ( 见图 ) 截至 2016 年初, 至少 134 个国家, 占全球对外 FDI 流量与存量的 99%, 受到该条款的约束 ESI 单边裁决条款可从两个方面进行分类 : 范围广义条款 (127IIAs) 涉及根本安全利益, 缺乏进一步定义或限制, 给予政府自主权以决定 ESI 构成内容例如, 本协定不应阻止缔约方为保护自身利益 (ESI) 采取必要措施 3 1

12 狭义条款 (95IIAs) 限制单边裁决的特定对象, 通常与提供某些信息相关, 也包括事件, 例如战争, 或其他紧急事件有时, 狭义条款引用包含, 或复制 GATT art. XXI 和 GATS art. IXbis 效力强制条款 (15IIAs) 包括补充规定, 仲裁庭必须尊重政府对其 ESI 的判断 : 进一步明确, 如果缔约国援引 (ESI) 仲裁庭或陪审团应该认为此例外适用 4 一般条款 (190IIAs) 仅规定单边裁决性质限制条款 (17IIAs) 判定单边裁决不适用于, 例如随意不合理歧视措施, 或仅为规避条约义务 5 这为仲裁审查预留了空间 6 ( 明确要求 7 ), 尤其是当条约要求为援引例外提供理由其中, 最具深远影响力的广义强制条款, 给予政府最大自主权以决定履行条约义务 10 份 IIAs 包含该类条款随之,102 份包括广义 / 一般条款, 以及 88 份包括狭义 / 一般条款或许除条款强制外, 否则, 大部分单边裁决条款将无疑受到善意原则 8 的挑战但是, 仲裁庭必须服从政府的判断 9 总体而言,ESI 单边裁决条款的激增使 IIA 保护变得不确定, 协定约束从属于政府规制它们可能延伸更广, 因为政府寻求保护 ESI 问题与监管主权, 可能扩展至安全领域外, 覆盖金融及其他管理广义 / 一般 ESI 单边裁决条款影响范围大, 导致政权滥用的风险滥用权利或许能受到限制, 通过更狭义定义根本安全利益和更清晰描述例外何时能被援引 ( 例如, 限制仅针对国家安全问题, 或明确规定不适用于更广义利益和经济问题 ); 明确规定善意原则要求 ; 包括最终手段 ; 要求向联合委员会提供通知或事先的理由 ; 援引 ESI 条款前, 与条约另一缔结方磋商然而, 最终, 条款仍保持单边裁决性尽管本文所描述的趋势可能仅是政府将拥有更多权利的投资机制再平衡的一部分, 但是, 必须谨慎避免削弱此过程中国际投资法的效力 ( 南开大学国经所黄佳翻译 ) * Karl P. Sauvant (karlsauvant@gmail.com) 高级研究员, 哥伦比亚可持续投资中心, 哥伦比亚大学 ; Mevelyn Ong (mso2121@columbia.edu) 2016 年法学学位毕业生, 哥伦比亚法学院 ; Katherine Lama (kal2208@columbia.edu) 2016 年 MPA 毕业生, 哥伦比亚国际与公共事务学院 ; Thor Petersen (tjp2141@columbia.edu) J.D. Candidate 哥伦比亚法学院. 研究方法详情见 Methodology Note, Karl P. Sauvant. 作者对 Louis-Alexis Bret, Pakwan Chuensuwankul, Katerina Florou, Camilla Gambarini, Jo En Low, 2

13 Amanda Jimenez Pinton, Shawn Lim, 和 Carl Lundeholm 项目期间的研究帮助, 许多同事政府官员和投资促进机构的特殊帮助, 以及 Manfred Schekulin 和 Stephan Schill 的评论表示感谢. 作者也对 Mark Kantor, Michael W. Reisman 和 Kenneth Vandevelde 同级审评表示感谢. Perspective 该作者观点不代表哥伦比亚大学, 以及其支持者的观点 Columbia FDI Perspectives (ISSN ) 是一个同级审评系列 1 2 或相似的自裁决表述. 涉及各类数据库和与国家的直接联系, 但不包括所有国家和 IIAs. 3 US-Australia FTA, art. 22.2(b). 4 详见 US-Peru FTA, art Whereas the US discontinued use of such a footnote since 2007, other countries have not 详见 Korea-Japan BIT, art. 16. 详见 Japan-Mozambique BIT, art. 18. 详见 China-Peru FTA, art 详见 Kenneth Vandevelde, Of politics and markets: the shifting ideology of the BITs, International Tax & Business Lawyer, 卷 11 (1993), 页 159; Stephan Schill and Robyn Briese, If the state considers : self-judging clauses in international dispute settlement, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 卷 13 (2009), 页 Tribunals in investor-state arbitrations have not yet considered self-judging ESI clauses. The effect of self-judging provisions in other legal instruments ( 例如 ICJ Statute, art. 36(2)) remains uncertain. 详见 Interhandel (Switzerland v. US) [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 6 (Judgment). 3

14 图 1. 含 ESI 单边裁决条款的 IIAs 累计数, 年初来源 :UNCTAD IIA 数据库,IIAs 数量 ( 及自己整理 4

15 图 2. 每年签订 IIAs 总量及含 ESI 单边裁决条款的 IIAs 数量, Total annual number of IIAs Number of IIAs with self-judging ESI clauses 来源 :UNCTAD IIA 数据库,IIAs 数量 ( 及自己整理 5

16 图 3. 含 ESI 单边裁决条款的 IIAs 逐年占比, 年初 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 来源 :UNCTAD IIA 数据库,IIAs 数量 ( 及自己整理 6

17 图 4. 含 ESI 单边裁决条款的国家累计数, 来源 :UNCTAD IIA 数据库,IIAs 数量 ( 及自己整理 7

18 表. ESI 单边裁决条款, 范围与效力强制条款一般条款限制条款广义条款狭义条款

19 转载请注明 : Karl P. Sauvant and Mevelyn Ong, with Katherine Lama and Thor Petersen 国际投资协定中基于安全利益单边裁决条款的兴起, No. 188, 2016 年 12 月 5 日转载须经哥伦比亚大学可持续投资中心授权转载副本需发送到哥伦比亚中心的 ccsi@law.columbia.edu 如需详细信息请联系 : 哥伦比亚可持续投资中心,Daniel Allman,daniel.allman@columbia.edu 哥伦比亚可持续投资中心 (CCSI), 是哥伦比亚大学法学院和地球研究所联合建立的研究中心, 也是致力于对可持续国际投资加以研究实践与讨论的应用研究中心和论坛为扩大国际投资对可持续发展的影响,CCSI 通过跨学科研究项目咨询多方利益相关者对话教育项目资源和工具开发, 承担着研究并推广实用方法和解决方案分析热点政策性议题的重要使命如需更多信息, 请访问 : 最新哥伦比亚国际直接投资展望文章 No. 187, Jan Knoerich, Why some advanced economy firms prefer to be taken over by Chinese acquirers, November 21, No. 186, Jose Guimon, From export processing to knowledge processing: upgrading the FDI promotion toolkit, November 7, No. 185, Frank J. Garcia, Investment treaties are about justice, October 24, No. 184, Lukas Linsi, Less compelling than it seems: rethinking the relationship between aggregate FDI inflows and national competitiveness, October 10, No. 183, Karl P. Sauvant and Güneş Ünüvar, Can host countries have legitimate expectations?, September 26, 所有之前的 FDI 展望可通过以下网站获得 : 9

狭义条款 (95IIAs) 限制单边裁决的特定对象, 通常与提供某些信息相关, 也包括事件, 例如战争, 或其他紧急事件有时, 狭义条款引用包含, 或复制 GATT art. XXI 和 GATS art. IXbis 效力强制条款 (15IIAs) 包括补充规定, 仲裁庭必须尊重政府对其 ES

狭义条款 (95IIAs) 限制单边裁决的特定对象, 通常与提供某些信息相关, 也包括事件, 例如战争, 或其他紧急事件有时, 狭义条款引用包含, 或复制 GATT art. XXI 和 GATS art. IXbis 效力强制条款 (15IIAs) 包括补充规定, 仲裁庭必须尊重政府对其 ES 哥伦比亚国际投资展望哥伦比亚大学可持续投资中心 FDI 热点问题的观点系列 188 2016 年 12 月 5 日总编辑 : Karl P. Sauvant (Karl.Sauvant@law.columbia.edu) 执行编辑 : Daniel Allman (daniel.allman@columbia.edu) 国际投资协定中基于安全利益单边裁决条款的兴起 Karl P. Sauvant