论文部分内容阅读
ICSID仲裁庭对两起以阿根廷为被告的主权债务重组争端仲裁案做出有权管辖权裁定后,学界掀开了仲裁庭是否具备管辖主权债务重组争端的大讨论。《华盛顿公约》第25条与投资条约中“同意”间的关系表明仲裁庭对物管辖需要通过双重审查来确定。而仲裁庭取得管辖权的核心问题是主权债券“投资”属性的确定。从Salini案确定的判断投资性质的客观要素分析,主权债券可以达到这些客观审查标准进而被仲裁庭管辖。通过分析条约之诉与契约之诉的竞合状态可知,ICSID仲裁解决主权债务重组争端存在法律上的可行性,只要适用得当并做好被滥用的防范准备,不失为一种解决主权债务重组争端的路径。
After the arbitration tribunal of ICSID ruled on two cases of arbitration over sovereignty debt restructuring involving Argentina as the defendant, the academic circles opened a large discussion on whether the arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute over sovereign debt restructuring. The relationship between Article 25 of the Washington Convention and the “consent” in the investment treaty shows that the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal needs to be determined through a double review. The core issue that the arbitration tribunal gains jurisdiction is the determination of the property of the sovereign bond “investment ”. From the Salini case to determine the nature of investment objective analysis, sovereign bonds can meet these objective examination criteria and then the arbitral tribunal jurisdiction. By analyzing the competing status of the lawsuit and the contract law of the treaty, we can see that ICSID arbitration has the legal feasibility to solve the sovereignty debt reorganization dispute. So long as it is appropriate to apply and be prepared for abuse, it can be regarded as a solution to the sovereignty debt restructuring dispute path.