ICSID管轄的雙重限制體系：本義、實踐與改革

A Dual System of Limitation on ICSID Jurisdiction: Original Intent, Practice and Reform

梳理談判史發現，ICSID管轄規則設定了一個雙重限制體系。“締約方同意”是這一體系的基礎，也是“仲裁庭權限”的根本來源；“中心的管轄”是這一體系的外部界限，而非仲裁庭可受理爭端的範圍。公約管轄條款不定義“投資”是不得已而為之，這也為雙重限制體系施加了一個微妙的設定，使得本應謙抑的仲裁庭在管轄問題上佔據主導地位。實踐中，不少仲裁庭混淆了“中心的管轄”與“仲裁庭的權限”，未能遵循雙重限制體系的本義。但“投資”客觀標準的出現有其存在的必要。仲裁庭片面地解讀投資協定目的背離了締約方意願，利用投資待遇條款突破管轄約定則是錯誤地理解了自身管轄的本質和屬性，進一步侵蝕了作為雙重限制體系基礎的“締約方同意”。締約方應當充分把握自身對管轄的根本決定地位，利用投資協定對相關規則作出明確規定。多邊層面，雙重限制體系需要得到正確的澄清，可能建立的常設機制應該參照ICSID的經驗，結合管轄的內在意涵合理設置相關規則。

A review of the negotiation history reveals that the ICSID jurisdictional rules have established a dual-restriction system.“Consent of the contracting parties”is the foundation of this system and the ultimate source of“competence of the tribunal”; whereas“jurisdiction of the Center”constitutes the external boundary of this system, not the scope of disputes that the tribunal can accept. The omission of a definition for“investment”in the jurisdictional clause of the Convention was an unavoidable compromise, thus imposing a subtle setting on the dual-restriction system and allowing the arbitral tribunal to take a dominant position on jurisdictional issues. In practice, numerous tribunals have confused“jurisdiction of the Center”with“competence of the tribunal”, failing to adhere to the original intent of the dual- restriction system. Nonetheless, the emergence of objective criteria for investments serves a necessary purpose. The tribunals’partial interpretation of the purpose of investment agreements erodes the intentions of the contracting parties, and the misuse of investment treatment clause to bypass jurisdictional provisions represents an erroneous understanding of the nature and attributes of their own jurisdiction, further damaging the“consent of the contracting parties,”which is the basis of the dual-restriction system. Contracting parties should fully grasp their fundamental decisive role in jurisdictional matters and take full advantage of investment agreements to establish clear rules on jurisdiction. At the multilateral level, the dual- restriction system needs to be correctly clarified, and the potential permanent mechanism should properly establish jurisdictional rules, drawing upon the experience of ICSID and the inherent implications of jurisdiction.