انتساب سلب‌ مالکیت غیرمستقیم اموال سرمایه‌گذار خارجی به ‌دولت در پرتو رویه‌ داوری‌های بین‌المللی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستخرج از رساله

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشگاه آزاداسلامی واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، اصفهان، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3 دانشیار گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، اصفهان، ایران.

چکیده

سلب ‌مالکیت غیرمستقیم یکی از مسائل مهم، پرمناقشه و بحث‌انگیز در حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی است. از چالش‌های مهم سلب‌مالکیت، ‌انتساب فعل یا ترک‌فعل منجر به سلب‌مالکیت به ‌دولت است‌که، در هاله‌ای از ابهام قرار دارد. سوال اساسی مقاله این است‌که، چه‌فعل یا ترک‌فعلی منجر به سلب‌مالکیت غیرمستقیم از اموال می‌شود؟ در صورت احراز محرومیت سرمایه‌گذار از سرمایه در سرمایه‌گذاری‌های در قالب قرارداد آیا سلب‌مالکیت محقق می‌شود؟ پژوهش حاضر با روش تحلیلی و توصیفی با استفاده از منابع کتابخانه‌ای به این نتیجه ‌رسیده که قبلا، شدت و ضعف محرومیت‌اساسی سرمایه‌گذار از حقوق مالکانه، و میزان منفعت‌اساسی دولت-میزبان با تفاسیر متنوع و تشتت‌آراء داوری همراه بوده که هر محرومیتی را اساسی تلقی نکرده و هر منفعتی را ضروری تشخیص نداده‌اند؛ اما امروزه، در صورت تعارض بین منفعت دولت‌میزبان و سرمایه‌گذار این امر به آرامی اما قاطعانه در حال چرخش بسوی سرمایه-گذاری‌هایی با رویکردی نو است که دولت را به‌عنوان حاکم مطلق به‌رسمیت شناخته است. هدف پژوهش پیش‌رو رسیدن به این مقصود است‌که: تمایز بین سرمایه‌گذاری از طریق معاهده و قرارداد را در سلب‌مالکیت بررسی کند. نقش ارگان‌ها و نهادهای سرمایه-گذاری و همچنین سازمان‌های زیست‌محیطی رادر سلب‌مالکیت بررسی، و تلاش جهت جلوگیری از بوجود آمدن مسئولیت داخلی و بین‌المللی دولت‌ها و ایجاد هماهنگی بین دولت و نهادهای دولتی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assignment of Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investor's Property to the Government in the Light of International Arbitrations Procedure

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Deldar 1
  • Mahmoud jalali 2
  • Leila Raisi 3
1 PhD Student of International Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch of Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of International Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan. Iran.
3 Associate Professor, of International Law , Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch of Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Indirect expropriation is one of the most important issues, controversial and disputable in foreign investment law. One of the major challenges of expropriation is assignment act or omission to expropriation the government, which is in an aura of ambiguity. Fundamental question of the article is what act or omission lead to indirect expropriation of property? If the investor is deprived of capital in investments in the form of contracts will expropriation be realized? The present study, by applying analytical and descriptive methods and using library sources, has concluded that previously, the severity and weakness of the investor's basic deprivation of property rights and the amount of the host government's main benefit have been accompanied by various interpretations and arbitrary judgments which has not considered any deprivation and benefits fundamental and necessary; But today, in case of conflict between the interests of the host government and the investor, this is slowly but decisively spinning towards investments with a new approach in a way that recognizes the government as the absolute ruler consider this right as a starting point in investments. On the other hand, any deprivation is not attributable to the government. But expropriation is inherently a government act. The purpose of the research is the creation of domestic and international responsibility of governments and coordination between government and institutions. To achieve this goal, the distinction between investment through check the treaty and the contract in expropriation. The role of investment bodies and institutions, as well as environmental organizations, in expropriation is examined, and efforts are made to prevent the emergence of domestic and international responsibility of governments and to establish coordination between the government and government institutions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Foreign Investment
  • Fundamental benefit
  • Fundamental deprivation
  • Expropriation
  • Assignment of action to the government
  1. Amiri, M., Raisi, L., Raee, M. (2021). The meanness of implementing countries' commitments to the right to a healthy environment) Anticsi case study of Islamic model document of Iranian progress). International Studies Journal (ISJ), 17(3), 135-155. (In Persian)
  2. Amto LLC v. Ukraine (2005). Decision Arbitration No. 80 (Arbitration Inst. Of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce).
  3. Antoine Goetz and others v. Republic of Burundi (2013). Consent and Arbitral Tribunal Competence to Hear Counterclaims in Treaty-based. ICSID, Arbitrations Foreign Investment Law Journal, 28(2), 291–300.
  4. Azurix corp. v. Argentine Republic (2006). ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on Jurisdiction.
  5. Borchard, E. (1934). The Protection of citizens abroad and change of original nationality. Yale Law Journal, 43.
  6. Broches, A. (2019). The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States ad Nationals of Other States. in Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, Part II, 136.
  7. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic (2005). ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of 12 May.
  8. CSOB v. Slovakia Republic (1999). (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4), Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May.
  9. Dolzer, R., Shreuer, C. (2016). Principles of International Investment Law. Translated by Seyed Ghasem Zamani and Behazin Hasibi, Third Edition, Tehran, Share Danesh Institute of Law (Research & Study). (In Persian).
  10. Ebrahimgol, A., R. (2018). International Responsibility of the Government Text and Description of the Materials of the Commission on International Law.Tehran: Shahrdanesh, Second Edition. (In Persian)
  11. Ebrahimpour Asanjan, A., Soleimani Dinani, M. (2021). The confrontation and interaction of indirect expropriation and regulation of the host government. Public Law Studies, 51(2), 805-825. (In Persian)
  12. EHCR cases (2020). National and provincial building society v. UK. 23/October/.
  13. Eudoro A. Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay (2001). ICSID, Case No. ARB/98/5, Award, 26 July.
  14. Fayouzi, R. (2018). International Law international responsibility and the theory of political protection of nationals. 1, Tehran: Tehran University. (In Persian)
  15. Kraus, Lawrenc., et.al.. (2020). Government Seizure of Medical Supplies from Health Care Providers- Is It Legal?. Foley & Lardner LLP.
  16. Lowenfeld, A. (2017). International Investment Law. Translated: Mohammad Javad, Ghanbari Jahromi, Tehran: Jungel Publications, Javdaneh, Second Edition. (In Persian)
  17. Maffezini v. Spain (2004). ICSID, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 Jan, Available at: http:// icsid. World bank. Org/ ICSID/ Front Servlel.
  18. Maihimi, M., Bagheri, M. (2016). Analysis of theories on indirect expropriation and its developments regarding investment in the field of energy. Energy Law Studies, 2(2). 405- 433. (In Persian)
  19. Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States (2002). CSID, Case No, ARB(AF)/97/1), 30 Aug.
  20. Methanex Corporation V.USA (2005). UNCITRAL, Arbitration Rules, Final Award.
  21. Mohsenpour, S. (2016). Foreign Investment and Environmental Protection in International Law. Tehran: Majd Publications, First Edition. (In Persian)
  22. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (2004). ICSID, Case No, ARB/01/7, Award, May 25, available at: http://www.italaw.com/
  23. Naderi, S., Afshari, M., Farshchi, P., Pourhashemi, S., A. )2020). Methods of implementing sustainable development goals in the Persian Gulf region from the perspective of international environmental law. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 16(4), 111 – 131. (In Persian)
  24. Piran, H. (1995). Indirect confiscation in international law and the U.S. Court of Arbitration of Iran. International Law Journal. 18 - 19, 415- 529. (In Persian)
  25. Piran, H. (2019). Legal Issues of International Investment. 3rd Edition, Tehran Ganj Danesh. (In Persian)
  26. Rahimi, R. (2018). The responsibility of the government and the private sector towards human rights. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 15(3), 65 - 88. (In Persian)
  27. Revere Copper and Brass (1980). Incororated-overseas Private Investment Corporation, Arbitral Award in Dispute Involving U.S. Investment Guaranty Program.
  28. Solhchi, M., A. (2014). Government responsibility for violations of international human rights by transnational companies. Public Law Research, 44, 105 - 128. (In Persian)
  29. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA V. United Mexican State (2003). ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/00/2.
  30. Teimouri, M., S. Joneidi, L. Saghari, M., d. Abbasian, R. (2018). Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investors, a research on Iranian and international law Private Law Research Sixth Year, 24, 9 – 36. (In Persian)
  31. Telenor Mobile Communication A.S. v. Rebulic of Hungary (2006). ICSID, Case No. ARB/04/15, Award, 13 September.
  32. Tenaris S.A. and Talta – Trading E Markating Sociedade Unipessoal LDA v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (2016). ICSID, Case No, ARB/11/26. Award.
  33. UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (2019).
  34. (2010). The Vivendi Annulment Decision and the Lessons for the Future. ICSID, Arbitration- The Applicant’s Perspective, in: Gaillard, Emmanuel, Annulment of ICSID Awards, A joint IAI-ASIL Conference. Washigton DC: April 1, New York.
  35. Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States ("Number 2") (2003). ICSID, Case No, ARB(AF) /00/3, Award of 30 April.
  36. Ziaee, S., (2014). The Position of Environmental Obligations in International Investment Law. Public Law Studies, 42, 192 - 224. (In Persian)