ICSID管轄權之範圍－從ICSID公約第25.1條及實務案例論「投資」概念

Abstract

為促進跨國投資發展，並建立一國際投資爭端解決機制，世界銀行（The World Bank）於1965年設立國際投資糾紛解決中心（The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes，以下簡稱為ICSID）。ICSID作為一專門處理外國投資人（Foreign Investors）與地主國（Host State）間投資糾紛之仲裁機構，應如何判斷其管轄權要件之一「直接因投資行為而衍生之糾紛（disputes arising directly out of an investment）」，以界定其管轄權範圍實屬重要。然而，解決國家與他國之國民間投資糾紛解決公約（Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States，以下簡稱ICSID公約）第25.1條並未明定何謂「投資」概念，導致後續仲裁庭對於「投資」概念之判斷方式產生分歧，進而影響當事人得否適用ICSID仲裁程序以解決其投資糾紛之權益。

有鑒於該議題之重要性，本文首先將探究ICSID公約之締約歷程及制定目的，以探求ICSID公約刻意省略「投資」概念之原意。其次，針對「投資」概念之認定，本文將檢視仲裁庭於過往仲裁判斷所採取之判斷方式（主要區分為主觀判斷方式與客觀判斷方式），及其所提出之適用理由與法律依據，並詳加研析當中具代表性案例。另外，為避免當事人逕自逾越「投資」概念之範圍，本文亦將比對國際投資協定對於投資之規範是否與ICSID公約相互牴觸。再者，為分析仲裁庭所採用判斷方式近年之發展趨勢，並探究不同仲裁判斷方式對於管轄權有無認定之影響，本文將逐一解析ICSID仲裁庭針對「投資」概念所作成之仲裁判斷，再試圖以實證研究角度來釐清該爭議。最終，本文將對於ICSID公約第25.1條所規範之「投資」概念提出最適當之判斷準則，以仲裁庭參酌，使其篩選得適用ICSID仲裁程序之投資糾紛，進而於保障當事人權益與把守ICSID管轄權範圍間取得平衡。

For the purpose of facilitating cross-border investment, creating the mechanism for international investment disputes, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) was established by the World Bank in 1965. ICSID has served as a key mechanism for adjudicating disputes between individual foreign investors and host states. It is indispensable for ICSID to determine whether a dispute brought before it arises directly out of an investment, as it is one of the requirements of its jurisdiction. However, the notion of “investment” is not explicitly defined under Article 25.1 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), which has led to the divergent approaches of judging the notion of the investment, further having an impact on parties’ rights to access to ICSID.

This thesis accordingly explores the notion of “investment” with regard to the jurisdiction of ICSID. First, I will explore the process of the ICSID Convention’s establishment, figuring out why the definition of investment is not regulated in the ICSID Convention. Second, tribunals have proposed two opposite approaches, a subjective approach and an objective approach, to evaluating the notion of “investment”. I will inspect the reason for the choice between the approaches and further analyze the arbitration awards relate to the issue. Third, I will compare the rules for investment stipulated in International Investment Agreements to the ICSID Convention, making sure there is no contradiction between them. Fourth, as the perspective of empirical study, I will evaluate contents of arbitration awards, synthesize the similarities and differences between each award, indicating the development and trends for evaluating the notion of “investment”. In conclusion, I will propose the most appropriate solution to interpreting the notion of “investment” under Article 25.1 of the ICSID Convention in order to strike the balance between the parties’ interests and maintaining the scope of ICSID’s jurisdiction.