摘要
在国际投资仲裁案件数量上,ICSID仲裁与非ICSID仲裁各占半壁江山。两者最显著的区分是,非ICSID仲裁裁决可能受到仲裁地法院的司法审查。作为主要仲裁地之一,加拿大的相关司法实践展现了国际投资仲裁裁决司法审查面临的特殊问题。由于投资争端兼具“商事”和“规制”特征,加拿大法院总体上坚持了遵循UNCITRAL示范法精神的有限审查,但在审查标准和法院裁量权行使上存在不一致现象,争议主要涉及对仲裁庭管辖权裁决的审查。Cargill案及其后的判决在一定程度上体现了投资仲裁的“非商事化”趋向,为实然法下兼顾投资争端的“规制”特征提供了可选路径。我国应设立对投资仲裁裁决的司法审查机制,指定专门法官组成法庭承担此项工作。
In terms of the number of international investment arbitration cases,the ICSID arbitration each account for half of the total.The most striking distinction between the two is that the non-ICSID awards may be subject to judicial review by the court at the seat of arbitration.As one of the main place of arbitration,Canada’s relevant judicial practice demonstrates the special issues faced by the judicial review on international investment arbitration awards.As investment disputes have both the commercial and regulatory characteristics,Canadian courts generally adhere to the limited review following the spirit of the UNCITRAL Model Law,but there is an inconsistency between the standard of review and the excise of the court’s discretion,and the dispute mainly revolves the review on the tribunal’s awards on jurisdiction.The Cargill case and subsequent judgments to some extent reflect the“non-commercialization”of investment arbitration,and provide an alternative path for considering the“regulatory”characteristics of investment disputes under real laws.China should establish a judicial review mechanism for investment arbitration awards and appoint particular judges to form a court to undertake this work.
出处
《武大国际法评论》
CSSCI
2020年第4期94-108,共15页
Wuhan University International Law Review
基金
司法部一般项目“国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查问题研究”(项目批准号:18SFB2055)阶段性成果。
关键词
国际投资仲裁
非ICSID裁决
司法审查
审查标准
international investment arbitration
non-ICSID awards
judicial review
standards of review
