公平與公正待遇條款改革的困境與出路－－RDC v. Guatemala案裁決引起的反思

Dilemma and Future of the Improvement of Fair and Equitable Treatment Clause - With Reflection on RDC v. Guatemala Award

晚近，各國條約實踐試圖將公平與公正待遇條款限定在習慣國際法最低待遇標準範疇內，進而將其主要義務內容確定在不得拒絕司法等有限的義項內，以限制投資條約仲裁庭的寬泛解釋。但是，RDC v. Guatemala案裁決表明，以美國為例的公平與公正待遇條款的條約改革實踐並沒有取得預期效果，仲裁庭仍然對於新一代公平與公正待遇條款採取寬泛解釋。對此，各國條約實踐應該進一步明確限定習慣國際法的證明方式、公平與公正待遇標准的具體義務內容和最惠國待遇條款的適用范圍，以促進公平與公正待遇標准仲裁實賤的確定性和一致性。在政策選擇上，不宜將公平與公正待遇的具體義務內容僅僅限定為不得拒絕司法，究竟如何列舉公平與公正待遇的具體義務內容仍需進一步的審慎考量。Staes in recent investment treaty practices try to limit the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET)clause to the minimum standard of customary in-ternational law, restrict the ecope of FET obligations to limited items such as no denial of justice, and to restrain tribunals' discretion in interpretation. However, as RDC v . Guatemala award shows, improvements of FET clause by the United States and many other States have not achieved the desired effect , and the tribu-nals are still making expansive interpretations of improved FET clauses. There-fore, in order to promote certainty and consistency of arbitral practices of FET, States need to further definitely limit the methods of proving customary interna-tional law；limit the concrete FET obligation scope and the scope of MFN clause application. As for policy options, the FET should not be exclusively limited to no denial of justice. States should prudently consider how to make a balanced FET obligations list.