论文部分内容阅读
香港居民谢业深(Mr.Tza Yap Shum)援引1994年《中国—秘鲁双边投资条约》,以秘鲁政府为被申请人,未经东道国同意,径自单方向ICSID申请仲裁,声称秘鲁政府对他在秘鲁境内设立的一家鱼粉公司采取了征收措施。涉讼双方争议首先聚焦于ICSID仲裁庭对本案是否具有管辖权。对这一问题的回答主要取决于:(1)1994年《中国—秘鲁BIT》可否直接适用于“一国两制”下的中国香港特别行政区;(2)外国投资商可否不顾有关BIT中仲裁条款的限制,不经东道国同意,单方把一切投资争端都提交ICSID仲裁。本案仲裁庭于2009年6月19日作出裁定,确认该庭对本案具有管辖权。本文从国际法规范和法理学角度,对上述裁决提出质疑,认为依据国际公约、国际协定、中国法律以及香港基本法,本案仲裁庭的上述管辖权裁定是无理的、错误的、违法的、可以申请撤销的。
Mr. Tza Yap Shum, a Hong Kong resident, cites the 1994 China-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty, uses the Peruvian government as the respondent and applies for arbitration from ICSID unilaterally without the consent of the host state, claiming that the Peruvian government is in Peru The establishment of a fishmeal company to take levy measures. The parties to the dispute first focused on whether the ICSID arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over the case. The answer to this question depends mainly on: (1) whether the “China-Peru BIT” in 1994 could be directly applied to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China under “one country, two systems”; (2) whether foreign investors could disregard the arbitration clause in the BIT Without the consent of the host country, unilaterally submitted all investment disputes to ICSID arbitration. In this case, the arbitration tribunal made a ruling on June 19, 2009, confirming that the court has jurisdiction over the case. This article challenges the ruling from the perspective of normative and jurisprudence of international law. According to international conventions, international agreements, Chinese law and Hong Kong Basic Law, the arbitral tribunal in this case decided that the aforesaid jurisdiction decision is unreasonable, wrong and illegal and may apply for revocation of.