论投资条约中的“符合东道国法律”要求——兼论我国在中美投资条约谈判中的立场选择 (In Accordance with Local Laws' Requirement in BITs: Arbitration Jurisprudence and Chinese Approaches)

Abstract

Chinese Abstract: “符合东道国法律”要求是投资条约对投资定义和条约适用范围的主要限制之一，亦是目前中美投资条约谈判的重要争论点之一。对于该要求，欧式投资条约和美式投资条约采取了截然不同的态度：欧式投资条约对于该要求有明确的规定且主要表现为定义条款规定模式、非定义条款规定模式以及并列条款规定模式，而美式投资条约则没有对该要求作出规定。国际投资仲裁实践表明：“符合东道国法律”要求是投资条约对投资合法性的要求，“符合东道国法律”要求与仲裁庭的管辖权密切相关，诚信原则是判断投资合法性、确立“符合东道国法律”要求的重要标准。基于我国在国际投资领域角色的转换，在中美投资条约谈判中，我国不仅应当在条约文本中以定义条款规定模式对“符合东道国法律”要求作出规定，而且应当根据条约文本中有关“投资准入”这一前提问题的规定，对“符合东道国法律”要求的规定作出适当的调整。

English Abstract: The “in accordance with local laws” requirement is not only the main restriction on the “investment” definition and application of international investment treaties but also a key issue discussed in the current China-US BIT negotiations. In treaty practice, the European and U.S. approaches are distinct in this respect: European treaties normally include such a requirement in either the definition clause or non-definition clauses or both clauses, while the U.S. treaties do not provide the requirement. In arbitral practice, the “in accordance with local laws” requirement has been interpreted to the requirement of “legality” of investment, which has a close tie with the jurisdiction of international tribunals. Also, the principle of “good faith” is a critical element in determining the legality of investment and eligibility of “in accordance with local laws”. Given the dual role of China in international investment activities, I argue that the U.S.-China BIT should expressly include the “in accordance with local laws” requirement in the definition of investment with different languages depending on whether the treaty provides a market access provision.

Note: Downloadable document is in Chinese.

Keywords: In accordance with local laws' requirement; international investment treaties; international investment arbitration; legality of investment

JEL Classification: K33