首页> 外文期刊>Harvard international law journal >The Meaning of 'Investment': ICSID's Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law
【24h】

The Meaning of 'Investment': ICSID's Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law

机译:“投资”的含义:ICSID的Travaux与国际投资法领域

获取原文
       

摘要

Tribunals have sharply curtailed the categories of investment eligible for protection under international investment law's keystone treaty, the ICSID Convention. This Article urges them to reverse that trend and recognize that ICSID has jurisdiction over any plausibly economic asset or activity. Tribunals' sudden constriction of what constitutes "investment" arises in the first instance from a widespread historical misunderstanding. Commentators have commonly acted as though the Convention's omission of a definition for "investment" amounts to a wholesale delegation of the question to arbitral tribunals for case-by-case lawmaking. That premise is mistaken. The Convention's travaux demonstrate that the drafters adopted a clear - and extremely broad - meaning of "investment." It is not that all parties agreed on this broad understanding from the start. Rather, the broad definition was part of a compromise reached after long and contentious negotiations over what that definition should be. The other element of the compromise was a series of opt-out provisions by which states could narrow the Convention's capacious baseline definition on an individual basis. The historical arrangement properly reflects the deference that international tribunals owe to state autonomy. This Article suggests three reasons for tribunals to respect a state's decision to extend ICSID protection to a given category of enterprise, First, the historical approach retains policy flexibility in a pluralist world occupied by diverse state actors with shifting policy preferences. Second, it delegates economic decisions to political entities that generally have a comparative advantage in both expertise and legitimacy. Third, it recognizes that the operative legal term is meant to facilitate state action, not to restrain state autonomy. This Article therefore argues that international tribunals should respect the ICSID framework as it was originally established: an adaptable vehicle with the capacity to satisfy many states' preferences and the flexibility for individual states to change their investment policies over time.
机译:法庭已大大削减了根据国际投资法的主要条约《国际投资争端解决中心公约》有资格获得保护的投资类别。本文敦促他们扭转这一趋势,并承认ICSID对任何可能的经济资产或活动具有管辖权。法庭对“投资”的突然收缩首先是由广泛的历史误解引起的。评论员通常采取的行动似乎是,公约对“投资”定义的省略等于是将问题批发委派给仲裁庭以逐案立法。这个前提是错误的。 《公约》的准备工作表明,起草者采用了“投资”的明确且极为广泛的含义。并非所有各方从一开始就就这一广泛理解达成共识。相反,广泛的定义是在就该定义应进行长期和有争议的谈判之后达成的折衷方案的一部分。折衷方案的另一要素是一系列选择退出条款,各国可以据此缩小公约对个人的基准定义的范围。历史安排正确地反映了国际法庭对国家自治的尊重。本文提出了三个理由,使法庭能够尊重国家将ICSID保护范围扩展到给定类别企业的决定。首先,历史方法保留了在多元化的世界中政策的灵活性,该世界由不同的国家行为者占据,政策偏好不断变化。其次,它将经济决策委托给通常在专业知识和合法性方面都具有相对优势的政治实体。第三,它认识到有效的法律用语旨在促进国家行动,而不是限制国家自治。因此,本文认为,国际法庭应尊重最初建立的ICSID框架:一种适应能力强的工具,能够满足许多州的偏好,并且各个州可以随时间改变投资政策的灵活性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号