论文部分内容阅读
对于贿赂行为的证明标准,国际投资仲裁庭的倾向是从回避到明确借鉴传统商事仲裁中的“更高证明标准”。然而,国际投资仲裁与国际商事仲裁存在较大的区别。支持国际商事仲裁庭采用“更高证明标准”的传统理由及潜在动机在国际投资仲裁中并不存在。因此,在国际投资仲裁中采用“更高证明标准”的法律依据不足。建议中国在BIT中将贿赂作为不可仲裁的投资争端事项之一加以规定,或者明确规定应采纳的证明标准。如中国作为被申请方参加国际投资仲裁程序,应该主动与仲裁庭讨论关于贿赂的证明标准问题,以争取有利条件。
As for the standard of proof of bribery, the tendency of international investment arbitration tribunals is to evade the explicit reference of “higher standard of proof ” in traditional commercial arbitration. However, there is a big difference between international investment arbitration and international commercial arbitration. The traditional reasons and potential motives for supporting the International Commercial Arbitration Panel to adopt a “higher standard of proof” do not exist in international investment arbitration. Therefore, the legal basis for adopting the “higher standard of proof” in international investment arbitration is not sufficient. It is suggested that China stipulate bribery in BIT as one of the non-arbitrageable investment disputes, or clearly set the standard of proof that should be adopted. If China, as the respondent, participates in international investment arbitration proceedings, it should take the initiative to discuss with the arbitration tribunal the standard of proof on bribery in order to win favorable conditions.