國際投資法中司法征收的邏輯證成及其推演張力

Logical Justification and Demonstration Effect of Judicial Expropriation in International Investment Arbitration

Saipem案投資仲裁庭將東道國法院拒絕承認與執行國際商事仲裁裁決的做法界定為司法征收，該案司法征收以國際商事仲裁裁決為BIT項下''投資''與無需窮盡當地救濟為顯著特征。司法征收的邏輯證成不僅拓展了征收的外延，而且有效區分了司法征收與司法拒絕，并對BIT下的''投資''概念作了進一步擴張解釋。以司法征收為標志的Saipem案仲裁實踐對國際投資法理論構成超越，具有明顯的推演張力。中國應清醒認識到司法征收的雙刃劍作用。

"Saipem tribunal defines the host country court’s refusal to recognize and enforce international commercial arbitration awards as judicial expropriation for the courts’violating the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights in international law and the New York Convention.The notable features of the judicial expropriation in this case are that previous international commercial arbitration awards were treated as the ''investment''under the BIT and exhausting local relief is not necessary.The logical justification of judicial expropriation not only expands the extension of expropriation,but also effectively distinguishes judicial expropriation and denial of justice.And it further expands the definition of''investment''under BIT.Marked by judicial expropriation,the arbitration practice of the Saipem case constitutes a transcendence to the theory of international investment law and has obvious demonstration effect.China should be soberly aware of the double-edged sword effect of judicial expropriation."