歐盟投資法庭裁決的執行路徑研究

Study on the Enforcement Routes of the Investment Court Award of European Union

近年來，歐盟在與加拿大、越南等國家簽訂的貿易與投資協定中引入了新型投資者與國家爭議解決機制──投資法庭機制。歐盟為投資法庭裁決設置了雙重執行路徑，但實際上都無法充分保證投資法庭裁決在全球範圍的自由流動。一方面，儘管根據《維也納條約法公約》第41條投資法庭機制可以被認定為部分締約國對1965年《華盛頓公約》的對內修改，但對協定以外的第三國不具有約束力。另一方面，技資法庭機制與1958年《紐約公約》具有一定程度的協調性，尤其是其組成事項符合《紐約公約》下“仲裁裁決”“書面仲裁協議”“商事爭議”的內涵，但在協定以外的第三國能否獲得執行存在很大的不確定性。未來如果中國在中歐全面投資協定中接受投資法庭機制應致力於構建有效的投資法庭裁決執行路徑。

In recent years, European Union (EU) has incorporated a wholly new investor-state dispute settlement mechanism-investment court system--into the trade and investment agreements concluded with Canada, Vietnam and other countries. EU has devised dual enforcement paths for the investment court award, but as a matter of fact, both of them can't sufficiently guarantee the free circulation of investment court award in the globe. On one hand, although in light of Article 41 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, the investment court system can be deemed as an inter se modification of the 1965 Washington Convention by certain contracting states, but it is not binding on the third country outside the Agreement. On the other hand, investment court system is, to some extent, more compatible with the 1958 New Yock Convention, in particular that its relevant component issues are consistent with requirements of the ''arbitral awards'', ''arbitration agreement in writing'', ''commercial dispute'' within the New York Convention, but whether the investment court award can be enforced in the third country outside the Agreement is uncertain. In the future, if China accepts the investment court system in the China-EU Comprehensive Investment Agreement, it should seek to establish an effective enforcement mechanism of investment court award.