پژوهش های حقوق اقتصادی و تجاری

پیوندهای مفید

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پرسش‌های متداول

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

کاربرد قواعد طرح مواد مسئولیت دولت و پیدایش نظام فرعی مسئولیت در داوری معاهده‌ای دولت- سرمایه‌گذار: باز اندیشی در قابلیت استماع دعوا

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول) n. nazaryani@sbu.ac.ir

چکیده

تمایل حقوق بین‌الملل معاصر به سمت چندپارگی است؛ به این معنا که حقوق عام مسئولیت دولت به نظام‌های فرعی ناشی از معاهدات خاص تقسیم می‌شود. این مقاله به بررسی کاربرد طرح مواد مسئولیت ۲۰۰۱ و شکل‌گیری یک نظام فرعی مسئولیت در دعاوی دولت–سرمایه‌گذار می‌پردازد.بررسی رویه داوری‌ها نشان می‌دهد که بخش‌های اول و چهارم طرح (انتساب، نقض، معاذیر و مقررات کلی) بیشترین کاربرد را داشته‌اند؛ در حالی که بخش دوم (جبران خسارت) با وجود تعلق به روابط دولت–دولت، اغلب به‌طور قیاسی اعمال شده و بخش سوم (اقدامات متقابل) کمتر مورد توجه بوده است. مقاله همچنین بر ایجاد یک نظام فرعی مسئولیت دولت در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذار–دولت تأکید می‌کند. این نظام با اتکا به مواد ۳۳ و ۵۵ شکل گرفته و با اعطای مستقیم حقوق به سرمایه‌گذاران، از قواعد سنتی قابلیت استماع دعوا مانند «تابعیت دعاوی» یا «لزوم طی مراجع داخلی» فاصله می‌گیرد؛ مگر آنکه در معاهده صراحتاً مقرر شده باشد. رویه داوری‌ها نیز این تمایز را تأیید کرده و مواد کمیسیون را بیشتر به‌عنوان بازتاب عرف و مقررات تکمیلی به کار بسته‌اند. نتیجه آنکه، اگرچه دیوان‌های سرمایه‌گذاری به‌طور گسترده به طرح کمیسیون استناد کرده‌اند، این استناد همراه با تعدیل و انطباق بوده و اینگونه می‌توان از شکل‌گیری یک نظام فرعی مسئولیت در این حوزه سخن گفت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Application of the Articles on State Responsibility and the Emergence of a Subsystem of Responsibility in Investor–State Treaty Arbitration: Rethinking Admissibility of Claims

نویسندگان [English]

  • mirshahbiz shafe 1
  • Niloufar Nazaryani 2

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D Student, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran., Corresponding Author Email: n.nazaryanin@sbu.ac.ir

چکیده [English]

Contemporary international law exhibits a tendency towards fragmentation, meaning that the general law of state responsibility is divided into treaty-specific subsidiary systems. This article examines the application of the 2001 International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the formation of a subsidiary system of responsibility in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). An examination of arbitral practice reveals that Parts One and Four of the ILC Articles (concerning attribution, breach, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, and general provisions) have been most frequently applied. In contrast, Part Two (content of responsibility, i.e., reparations), although pertaining to state-to-state relations, has often been applied by analogy, and Part Three (implementation of responsibility, i.e., countermeasures) has received less attention. The article also emphasizes the emergence of a subsidiary system of state responsibility within investor-state arbitration. This system, shaped by reliance on Articles 33 and 55 of the ILC Articles, and through the direct conferral of rights to investors, distances itself from traditional rules on the admissibility of claims, such as “the nationality of claims” rule or the “exhaustion of local remedies” requirement—unless explicitly stipulated in the treaty. Arbitral practice has confirmed this distinction, applying the ILC Articles more as a reflection of custom and supplementary rules. Consequently, although investment tribunals have extensively referred to the ILC Articles, such reference has involved modification and adaptation, thus allowing one to speak of the formation of a subsidiary system of responsibility in this field.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • State Responsibility
  • International Investment Law
  • Investor-State Disputes
  • Attribution
  • Admissibility of Claims
مراجع

  1. کتاب

    1. دالزر، رودلف و کریستف شروئر، اصول حقوق بین الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، مترجمان: سید قاسم زمانی و به‌آذین حسیبی، تهران: موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، 1393.
    2. مک لاکن، کمپل لارنس شور و متیو واینیگر، داوری سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی، مترجمان: ترجمه لعیا جنیدی، محمدرضا شکیب و بهاره احمدپور، ج 1، چ 2، تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان، ۱۴۰۳.

     

     

    References

    Book

    1. Crawford, James, The International Law Commission's articles on state responsibility: introduction, text and commentaries, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

    Articles

    1. Amador, FV García, Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in its Territory to the Person or Property of the Alien, Part II: The International Claim. Third Report on State Responsibility. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/111. In Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2, 1958.
    2. Arangio-Ruiz, Gaetano. State Responsibility. Eighth Report on State Responsibility. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/476 and Add. 1. In Yearbook of the International Law Commission II (Part Two), 1996.
    3. Bodansky, Daniel M., and John R. Crook, “Symposium: The ILC's State Responsibility Articles: Introduction and Overview”, J. Int'l L, Vol. 96, No. 773, 2002, pp. 773-791. https://doi.org/10.2307/3070677
    4. Crawford, James and Freya Baetens, “The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: More than a ‘Plank in a Shipwreck’?”, ICSID Review, 37, No. 1-2, 2022, pp. 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siab048
    5. Crawford, James, “Investment Tribunals and the ILC Articles on State Responsibility”, ICSID Rev FILJ, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp.127-199. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/25.1.127
    6. Hanessian, Grant, and Kabir Duggal, “The final 2015 Indian model BIT: Is this the change the world wishes to see?” ICSID Rev FILJ, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2017, pp. 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siw020
    7. Kaul, Divesh, “A Functional Approach to Local Exhaustion of Remedies in International Law”, U. Global Stud. L. Rev, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2024, pp. 151-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5211256
    8. Partlett, Kate, “The Application of the Rules on Countermeasures in Investment Claims: Visions and Realities of International Law as an Open System”, in Chinkin, Christine, and Freya Baetens (eds), Sovereignty, statehood and state responsibility, Cambridge University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107360075.027
    9. Riphagen, Willem. “Third Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of International Responsibility (Part 2 of the Draft Articles).” Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2, 1983, 22. UN Doc. A/CN.4/354/Add. 1 & 2.
    10. Shirlow, Esmé, and Kabir Duggal, “The ILC Articles on State Responsibility in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, ICSID Review, Vol. 37, No. 1-2, 2022, pp. 378, 542. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siac008
    11. Trindade, AA Cançado, “Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law experiments granting procedural status to individuals in the first half of the twentieth century”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1977, 373-392.
    12. Weiss, Edith Brown, “Invoking state responsibility in the twenty-first century”, J. Int'l L, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2002, pp. 798-816. https://doi.org/10.2307/3070679
    13. Zachary, Douglas, “The hybrid foundations of investment treaty arbitration”, The British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 74, No. 1, 2004, 151-289

    Precedents  and case law

    1. Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman. ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, November 3, 2015.
    2. AES Corporation and Tau Power BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan. ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16, Award, November 1, 2013.
    3. Belenergia SA v. Italian Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40, Award, August 6, 2019.
    4. Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe. ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Award, July 28, 2015.
    5. Bilcon of Delaware et al. v. Government of Canada. PCA Case No. 2009–04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, March 17, 2015.
    6. Case Concerning Electronica Sicula SpA (ELSI) (United States v. Italy). ICJ Rep. 1989: 14.
    7. CME v. Czech Republic. Partial Award, paras. 411, 417.
    8. Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux/Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, November 21, 2000, 5 ICSID Rep. 299.
    9. Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux/Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, July 3, 2002, 6 ICSID Rep. 340.
    10. El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, October 31, 2011.
    11. Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, LP v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, May 22, 2007.
    12. Flemingo Duty Free Shop Private Limited v. Republic of Poland. UNCITRAL, Award, August 12, 2016.
    13. Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, September 22, 2014.
    14. Islamic Republic of Iran and United States (Case A/18) (Dual Nationality). Decision, April 6, 1984, DEC 32-A18-FT, (1984) 5 Iran–US CTR 251.
    15. Majjezini v. Kingdom of Spain. ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, January 25, 2000, 5 ICSID Rep. 396.
    16. Masdar Solar and Wind Cooperatief UA v. Kingdom of Spain. ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, May 16, 2018.
    17. Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Case A/18, October 21, 1983.
    18. Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan. SCC Case No. V 064/2008, Final Award, June 8, 2010.
    19. Quiborax SA and Non-Metallic Minerals SA v. Plurinational State of Bolivia. ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award, September 16, 2015.
    20. RWE Innogy GmbH and RWE Innogy Aersa S.A.U. v. Kingdom of Spain. ICSID Case No. ARB/14/34, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability, Quantum, December 30, 2019.
    21. Sedco, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Company and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Case ITL 55-129-3, Award,
    22. Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, August 6, 2003, 42 ILM 1290.
    23. Sun Reserve Luxco Holding SRL v. Italy. SCC Case No. 132/2016, Final Award, March 25, 2020.
    24. The Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania. ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Award, May 6, 2013.
    25. Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands BV v. Republic of Turkey. ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Award, March 10, 2014.
    26. Unión Fenosa Gas, SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt. ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award, August 31, 2018.
    27. Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, December 8, 2016.
    28. Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States. ICSID Case No. ARB(AF) /00/3, Decision on Preliminary Objection, June 26, 2002, 6 ICSID Rep. 549.
    29. Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man); Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation. PCA Case Nos. 2005–04/AA227, 2005–05/AA228, Final Award, July 18, 2014.

    Legislative Instruments

    1. International Law Commission. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, ch. 4, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001).
    2. GA Res. 56/83 (Dec. 12, 2001).
    3. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, March 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270, 575 U.N.T.S. 159.

    Online Sources

    1. UNCTAD, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator. )Accessed at August 28, 2025(. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement
    2. Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator: Full Data Release as of 31/12/2023 (Excel format). )Accessed at August 28, 2025(.

    https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement

     

پژوهش های حقوق اقتصادی و تجاری
دوره 4، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 13
خرداد 1405
صفحه 157-185
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار