國際投資仲裁中東道國安全抗辯的應對策略研究——以華為訴瑞典案為例

Research on the Response Strategies to the Host State's Security Defense in International Investment Arbitrations: Taking Huawei v. Sweden as an Example

近年來，國家安全抗辯因其兼具政治性與法律性的雙重屬性而被西方國家頻繁援引以阻擋中國企業的海外投資進程。華為在瑞典遭遇的禁令即為明例。在用盡當地救濟無果後，華為已於2022年向國際投資爭端解決中心提起國際投資仲裁，案件即將進入實質審查階段。通過分析東道國安全抗辯的兩種法律基礎、結合本案案件事實，筆者認為瑞典極有可能基於習慣國際法中的國家“危急情況”提出抗辯。據此，華為在仲裁中應採取如下策略：明確否定瑞典存在習慣國際法中的國家“危急情況”，在舉證階段積極援用不利推定以否定瑞典的安全抗辯，最後，針對瑞典違反投資保護義務的事實提出索賠請求。作為首場就5G禁令提起的國際投資仲裁案件，此案對於中國投資者應對習慣國際法中的國家“危急情況”具有重要價值，也為前瞻性地應對其他安全抗辯，即國際投資條約中的安全例外條款，提供了參考。

The national security exception, due to its dual (political and legal) nature, is invoked frequently by Western countries to block the overseas investments of Chinese enterprises in recent years. A vivid example is Sweden's ban on China Huawei's investment in Sweden. Having exhausted local remedies in Sweden to no avail, Huawei filed an international investment arbitration with ICSID in 2022. The case is about to enter the substantive review stage. By analyzing the legal reasons that support the host country's security defense, together with the facts of this case, it is believed that Sweden is most likely to raise its security defense on the ground of ''critical situation'' under customary international law. Accordingly, Huawei should adopt the following strategies during the arbitration: explicitly deny the existence under customary international law of Sweden's ''critical situation'', and invoke ''adverse presumptions'' at the proof stage to disallow Sweden's claim of ''national security exception'' as a defense, and finally, file a claim against Sweden for breach of investment protection obligations. As the first international investment arbitration case filed on the 5G ban, this case is of great value to Chinese investors in dealing with ''critical situations'' under customary international law, and also provides a proactive reference for responding to other security defenses (i. e., the national security exception clause in international investment treaties).