论文部分内容阅读
晚近,各国条约实践试图将公平与公正待遇条款限定在习惯国际法最低待遇标准范畴内,进而将其主要义务内容确定在不得拒绝司法等有限的义项内,以限制投资条约仲裁庭的宽泛解释。但是,RDC v.Guatemala案裁决表明,以美国为例的公平与公正待遇条款的条约改革实践并没有取得预期效果,仲裁庭仍然对于新一代公平与公正待遇条款采取宽泛解释。对此,各国条约实践应该进一步明确限定习惯国际法的证明方式、公平与公正待遇标准的具体义务内容和最惠国待遇条款的适用范围,以促进公平与公正待遇标准仲裁实践的确定性和一致性。在政策选择上,不宜将公平与公正待遇的具体义务内容仅仅限定为不得拒绝司法,究竟应如何列举公平与公正待遇的具体义务内容仍需进一步的审慎考量。
Recently, the practice of treaties in various countries tried to limit the fair and equitable treatment clause to the minimum standard of customary international law, so as to limit the main obligations of the treaty to the limited meaning of judicial refusal so as to limit the broad interpretation of the investment treaty arbitration tribunal. However, the ruling in RDC v. Guatemala shows that the treaty reform practice of the fair and equitable treatment of the United States, for example, has not achieved the desired results. The tribunal still adopts a broad interpretation of the next generation of the fair and equitable treatment clause. In this regard, the practice of treaties in various countries should further clarify the mode of proving customary international law, the specific obligations of fair and equitable treatment standards, and the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause so as to promote the certainty and consistency of the standard arbitration practice of fair and equitable treatment. In terms of policy choice, it is inappropriate to limit the specific obligations of fair and equitable treatment only to no denial of justice. The detailed obligations on how to list fair and equitable treatment still need further careful consideration.