國際投資條約中企業社會責任條款所涉義務的可仲裁性研究

Research on the Arbitrability of Obligations Arising from Corporate Social Responsibility Clauses in International Investment Treaties

要明確企業社會責任條款作為投資仲裁的考慮因素，有助於在裁判中明確企業的與有過錯，同時利於防止東道國假借人權問題對投資者實施歧視性措施。企業社會責任條款的義務群由東道國義務群與投資者義務群組成，東道國國內的監管法規與企業社會責任條款相對應，國內監管法規可以提高監管水平，使得人權、環境、勞工等企業社會責任落實。投資者應當根據東道國承認的企業社會責任標準落實生產經營規範。企業落實以國內法形式載明的企業社會責任標準構成履行條約義務。至此，國家投資措施與企業社會責任條款的鏈接成功構建。仲裁庭所選擇的平衡性分析檢索範式可以分成兩個階段，第一階段通過裁量餘地規則篩選與實體問題相關的企業社會責任主張。第二階段選擇契合投資者待遇的平衡性測試。這一平衡性分析檢索範式應當尊重東道國的價值優位選擇，也應當排除基於貿易保護主義的限制措施。最後對於仲裁庭而言，選擇任何平衡性分析檢索範式都不應當構成司法造法。

Clarifying the corporate social responsibility clause as a factor for consideration in investment arbitration helps to determine the liability of the enterprise in tribunal's decisions and to prevent host countries from discriminating against investors under the guise of human rights concerns. The obligations arising from corporate social responsibility clauses encompass both those of host countries and investors. Domestic regulatory frameworks align with corporate social responsibility clauses, enhancing regulatory standards and ensuring the implementation of corporate social responsibility in areas such as human rights, environment, and labor. Investors should adhere to the corporate social responsibility standards recognized by the host country. Enterprises' compliance with corporate social responsibility as mandated by domestic law is equivalent to fulfilling their treaty obligations. Thus, a robust link has been established between national investment measures and corporate social responsibility clauses. The paradigm of balancing test inspection chosen by the arbitral tribunal can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, corporate social responsibility claims relating to substantive issues are identified by margin of appreciation. In the second phase, a balancing test aligned with treatments of foreign investors is applied. This paradigm should respect the host country's preference for social values and exclude measures of protectionism. Ultimately, for the arbitral tribunal, any paradigm should not result in judicial law-making.