跨太平洋夥伴協定下的投資人對地主國仲裁機制──以ICSID與UNCITRAL仲裁程序之比較為中心

Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement —Comparison between the ICSID Procedures and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules

國際區域經濟整合日趨熱絡，我國近年亦積極爭取加入如跨太平洋夥伴協定（TPP）的國際經貿協定。TPP下的投保專章除制訂跨國投資之實體規範以外，亦明訂以仲裁作為投資人對地主國爭端解決（ISDS）機制之一，投資人得依解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約（ICSID公約）向國際投資爭端解決中心（ICSID）提交仲裁，或依據ICSID附加便利規則（Additional Facility Rules）進行仲裁，或依循聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則（UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules）進行仲裁。此等程序除原則上尊重當事人自主原則以外，亦各自有其獨特設計與相異之處：如仲裁庭之主任仲裁人由當事人或仲裁人選任；是否採取促進程序效率的相關措施，如針對濫訴之異議、程序性諮商、庭前會議等；是否將仲裁程序透明化與公開仲裁相關資訊；仲裁判斷之救濟由何種機關審理；仲裁判斷的承認與執行之依據等。我國若加入TPP，對此等程序之適用有加以探究之必要。

In light of the growth in regional economy integration, Taiwan has endeavored to participate in FTAs such as the TPP. The investment chapter of the TPP includes not only provisions of substantive treatments towards investment, but also ISDS mechanisms. Should a dispute arise, an investor will be allowed to request for arbitration against a host state in accordance with ICSID Convention art. 25(1) or ICSID Additional Facility Rules, or alternatively commence arbitral proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. These three arbitration procedures share the same principle of party autonomy, but are differently designed in various detailed aspects, such as the composition of the tribunal, the mechanisms promoting procedural efficiency, the prevention of frivolous claims, transparency in arbitral proceedings, and most importantly, the enforcement of and remedy against the awards. Once Taiwan joins the TPP, it is necessary to understand such procedures.