論國際投資仲裁裁決的承認與執行－－以執行法院的審查權為中心

Recognition and Enforcement of International Investment Arbitration A ward－Focusing on the Authority of Judicial Review of the Court

在承認與執行國際投資仲裁裁決時，執行國家／執行法院的審查權之有無及其審查範圍之大小取決於該國之身份。首先，根據《華盛頓公約》與相關案例，東道國有義務直接履行裁決，而不應在承認與執行過程中對相關裁決實體內容予以審查。其次，如果外國投資者申請《華盛頓公約》締約方法院承認與執行相關裁決，那麼根據相關規則與案例可推斷出，存在對締約方審查權的“有限間接授權＂。再次，其他情況下，在外國投資者依據《紐約公約》或者“互惠原則＂向第二國法院申請承認與執行之時，執行法院對裁決實體內容具有明確的審查權。

When a state's court is asked to recognize and enforce an international investment arbitration award, the existence and scope of authority of judicial review of the court depend on that state's identity. Firstly, the host state has the obligation to execute an award and doesn't have the authority to review an award as to its substance, according to the Washington Convention, relevant arbitral cases and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Secondly, if it is a Contracting State to the Washington Convention, whose court is asked to recognize and enforce an award by foreign investors, then this Contracting state is empowered with 'limited and indirect authorization of review', based on the analysis of Article 54 of the Washington Convention, its drafting history, arbitral cases and commentators' views. Thirdly, if foreign investors, relying on the New York Convention or the Reciprocity Principle, turn to a third state's court for the recognition and enforcement of an award in other situations, that court has explicit authority of judicial review.