引用本文
  • NING Hongling,2,QI Tong.论国内法院在投资条约仲裁中的角色——以“印度诉沃达丰英国”案为例[J].国际商务研究,2020,(6):75-85    [点击复制]
  • NING Hongling,2,QI Tong.[cn_title][J].INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCH,2020,(6):75-85   [点击复制]
【打印本页】 【在线阅读全文】 查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器关闭

←前一篇|后一篇→

过刊浏览    高级检索

本文已被:浏览 12次   下载 18 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
论国内法院在投资条约仲裁中的角色——以“印度诉沃达丰英国”案为例
NINGHongling,2,QITong
0
摘要:
投资者—国家仲裁机制产生于对发展中国家司法公正性不信任的基础上,在确保程序正义方面亦存在体制性缺陷。以条约为基础的投资者—国家仲裁自身并不属于条约范畴,而是自成一类,并受到国内法的规制。东道国国内法院拥有依据其国内法和善意之一般国际法原则禁止外国投资者滥用仲裁程序的固有管辖权,但此种管辖权应当以不威胁投资者—国家仲裁机制存在价值的方式谨慎行使。新德里高等法院对“印度诉沃达丰英国”案的判决,作为东道国国内法院协调碎片化的投资条约仲裁程序的重要实践,充分体现了国内法与国际法之间的复杂博弈关系。
关键词:  国内法院  投资者—国家仲裁  滥用程序  反仲裁禁令
DOI:
基金项目:国家社会科学基金智库专项“一带一路建设国际法问题研究”(项目编号:17VDL021)。
The Role of National Court in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Case Study of India v. Vodafone
NING Hongling,2,QI Tong
Abstract:
The emergence of investor-state arbitration was based on perceived dependence of national court of the host state. But investor-state arbitration also has its systemic deficiencies in respect of guaranteeing procedural fairness. Investment treaty arbitration is not itself a treaty, but falls in sui generis category, within the domain of domestic law. Hence, national court of the host state retains the power of restraining an abuse of the international treaty arbitration according to domestic law and good faith which is a general principle of international law. But the exercise of such power should not undermine the rationale of investor-state arbitration. Judgement of India v. Vodafone represents the conflicts and coordination of domestic law and international law, and remarkable national practice of coordinating fragmented investment treaty arbitrations.
Key words:  national court  investor-state arbitration  abuse of process  anti-arbitration injunction

用微信扫一扫

用微信扫一扫