O presente trabalho tem como objeto a comparação entre a arbitragem comercial brasileira envolvendo a administração pública e a arbitragem de investimento no âmbito do International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID, sigla em inglês) - fórum mundialmente mais utilizado para resolver controvérsias entre investidor estrangeiro e Estado hospedeiro. Para cumprir este objetivo contextualiza-se o investimento estrangeiro no cenário global e como ele vem sendo tratado pela legislação brasileira, verifica-se a forma de operacionalização das arbitragens no âmbito do ICSID. Ainda, discute-se a arbitrabilidade, o direito aplicável e a forma de execução de sentenças pela referida Instituição, tanto de forma teórica como por meio de análise de casos. Foram selecionados casos paradigmas decididos no ICSID. Apresenta-se a legislação brasileira, no que tange a arbitragem envolvendo a administração pública e comparam-se as seguintes características com as da arbitragem ICSID: arbitrabilidade, direito aplicável; consentimento; procedimento arbitral, execução de sentença. Com a análise resultante deste estudo, revela-se que em termos de procedimento, consentimento e execução de sentença não há relevantes diferenças entre ambas as arbitragens. As características com as maiores diferenças de aplicação em ambos os sistemas são o direito aplicável e a arbitrabilidade. E, demonstrou-se que o sistema ICSID e os tratados ou acordos internacionais oferecem maior proteção ao investidor estrangeiro, enquanto a arbitragem com a administração pública brasileira, oferece mais instrumento de proteção ao Estado, como obrigatoriedade de utilização da lei local. / The object of this study is the comparison between the Brazilian commercial arbitration involving the public administration and the investment arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which is the most utilized forum to resolve disputes among foreign investor and the host State. In order to fulfill this objective the foreign investment is placed in context within the global scenario and how it has been treated in Brazilian legal framework, identifying the arbitration operationalization under the ICSID. Also is discussed the arbitrability, the applicable law and the form of award enforcement by the said institution, both theoretically and through case laws. Model cases decided by the ICSID were selected. Brazilian legislation regarding arbitration involving the public administration is presented. and following features was compared with the ICSID arbitration characteristics: arbitrability, applicable law; consent; arbitral proceeding, award enforcement. The resulting analysis of this study reveal that there are no relevant differences in terms of proceeding, consent and award enforcement between both arbitrations models. The features that presented larger application differences on both systems are the applicable law and arbitrability. Moreover, ICSID system and the international treaties or agreements offer higher protection to the foreign investor, the arbitration with the Brazilian public administration, can be more protective to the state, especially because of the use os local laws.

O presente trabalho tem como objeto a comparação entre a arbitragem comercial brasileira envolvendo a administração pública e a arbitragem de investimento no âmbito do International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID, sigla em inglês) - fórum mundialmente mais utilizado para resolver controvérsias entre investidor estrangeiro e Estado hospedeiro. Para cumprir este objetivo contextualiza-se o investimento estrangeiro no cenário global e como ele vem sendo tratado pela legislação brasileira, verifica-se a forma de operacionalização das arbitragens no âmbito do ICSID. Ainda, discute-se a arbitrabilidade, o direito aplicável e a forma de execução de sentenças pela referida Instituição, tanto de forma teórica como por meio de análise de casos. Foram selecionados casos paradigmas decididos no ICSID. Apresenta-se a legislação brasileira, no que tange a arbitragem envolvendo a administração pública e comparam-se as seguintes características com as da arbitragem ICSID: arbitrabilidade, direito aplicável; consentimento; procedimento arbitral, execução de sentença. Com a análise resultante deste estudo, revela-se que em termos de procedimento, consentimento e execução de sentença não há relevantes diferenças entre ambas as arbitragens. As características com as maiores diferenças de aplicação em ambos os sistemas são o direito aplicável e a arbitrabilidade. E, demonstrou-se que o sistema ICSID e os tratados ou acordos internacionais oferecem maior proteção ao investidor estrangeiro, enquanto a arbitragem com a administração pública brasileira, oferece mais instrumento de proteção ao Estado, como obrigatoriedade de utilização da lei local. / The object of this study is the comparison between the Brazilian commercial arbitration involving the public administration and the investment arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which is the most utilized forum to resolve disputes among foreign investor and the host State. In order to fulfill this objective the foreign investment is placed in context within the global scenario and how it has been treated in Brazilian legal framework, identifying the arbitration operationalization under the ICSID. Also is discussed the arbitrability, the applicable law and the form of award enforcement by the said institution, both theoretically and through case laws. Model cases decided by the ICSID were selected. Brazilian legislation regarding arbitration involving the public administration is presented. and following features was compared with the ICSID arbitration characteristics: arbitrability, applicable law; consent; arbitral proceeding, award enforcement. The resulting analysis of this study reveal that there are no relevant differences in terms of proceeding, consent and award enforcement between both arbitrations models. The features that presented larger application differences on both systems are the applicable law and arbitrability. Moreover, ICSID system and the international treaties or agreements offer higher protection to the foreign investor, the arbitration with the Brazilian public administration, can be more protective to the state, especially because of the use os local laws.

More than fifty investor-state arbitration claims have been filed by foreign investors against the Republic of Argentina due to the country's adoption of measures to mitigate the consequences of a severe financial crisis that struck the country in the early 2000s. Argentina invoked the Non-Precluded Measures (NPM) clause in the U.S.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the necessity defence in customary international law as its defense in these arbitrations. As a result of taking divergent approaches to interpreting the NPM clause in the U.S.-Argentina BIT, the tribunals reached inconsistent decisions on Argentina’s liability for damages incurred by foreign investors, which intensified the legitimacy crisis in the investment arbitration regime. Consequently, the tribunals’ approaches to interpreting the nexus requirement of the treaty NPM clause (the "necessary for" term) caused a fierce academic debate among scholars. This thesis studies the issues related to the inconsistent interpretation of treaty NPM clauses and the customary necessity defense in the investment arbitration regime. It presents a detailed examination of the necessity defense in customary international law and treaty NPM clauses through the lens of regime theory. By applying relevant concepts of regime theory, such as regime formation, regime attributes, regime consequences and regime dynamics, this work explores the origins and evolution of the necessity doctrine, and provides a comparative analysis of the attributes, structural elements and the consequences of invoking the customary necessity defense and treaty NPM clauses. This thesis analyses the interpretative issues in the Argentine cases, and based on the dynamics of developments in the practice of states, it arrives at concrete proposals that will contribute to the coherent practice of investment arbitration tribunals in interpreting treaty NPM clauses. By applying the concept of interaction of regimes, this thesis provides a comparative analysis of tests suggested by scholars for interpreting Article XI of the U.S.-Argentina BIT. It examines whether the interpretative testsmargin of appreciation, proportionality and less restrictive meansused by dispute settlement bodies in other specialized treaty regimes have the potential to serve as an optimal standard for interpreting Article XI. This work explains the contents of these tests and inquires as to the advantages and criticisms related to their application in the investment arbitration regime. This thesis further advances the argument that the interpretation of treaty NPM clauses (Article XI of the U.S.-Argentina BIT) should be performed with strict adherence to the general rules of interpretation as established under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Specifically, it argues that in cases when tribunals fail to define the meaning of a treaty provision under Article 31 (1) and (2) of VCLT, they should not look for guidance from other specialized treaty regimes, but rather, must have recourse to general international law, specifically, customary rules of international law. As a methodology for performing this interpretation, this thesis proposes to apply a systemic integration approach through operationalizing Article 31(3)(c) of VCLT. Furthermore, this thesis advances the argument that the interpretation of the only means requirement of the customary necessity defense (Article 25 of Articles on the Responsibility of States) does not accurately reflect the contemporary customary rules on necessity. Thus, by applying the concept of regime dynamics, it proposes to reconceptualise the interpretation of the only means requirement through incorporating the elements of a more progressive version, which is found in the international trade regime. Unlike the scholars who rejected the application of the customary necessity elements, and proposed the direct importation of the LRM test from the international trade regime to interpret Article XI, this thesis proposes a different approach to taking advantage of the WTO jurisprudence. Specifically, it argues that WTO jurisprudence can be incorporated into the investment regime indirectly by serving as a source from which we can identify the development of state practice in examining the "only means" nature of state measures adopted in emergency (necessity) circumstances. It is contended that such state practice represents a more progressive and practical approach to interpreting the only means requirement of customary necessity defense, and thus, should be incorporated into the interpretation practice of investment arbitral tribunals.

学位プログラム名: 京都大学大学院思修館 / 京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(総合学術) / 甲第21233号 / 総総博第5号 / 新制||総総||1(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院総合生存学館総合生存学専攻 / (主査)特定教授 林 信夫, 教授 濵本 正太郎, 教授 山敷 庸亮 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Philosophy / Kyoto University / DGAM

National security has emerged as a pivotal issue in the domains of international politics and law. Its scope has expanded significantly in contemporary contexts. Host States can leverage national security as a defence within International Investment Law (IIL). From the perspective of Customary International Law (CIL), host States may invoke Article 25 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), namely the plea of necessity, as a national security defence to preclude wrongfulness. Certain bilateral investment treaties incorporate an essential security exception clause, known as the 'non-precluded measures provision,' which further complicates the application of Article 25 of ARSIWA. Consequently, the investor-State-dispute-settlement tribunals have rendered divergent conclusions, revolving around the applicability of the CIL-based national security defence, its relationship with treaty-based defences, and the interpretation of Article 25 of ARSIWA. The employed methodologies are doctrinal research and critical legal studies (CLS). CLS examines the interaction between international politics and law, uncovering the structural biases inherent in international legal institutions that reflect the preferences and interests of dominant decision-makers. By structuralism, CLS posits that the indeterminacy of international law enables decision-makers to interpret laws according to their preferences. Thus, it is imperative to analyse the reasons behind the tribunals' conclusions. Additionally, legal positivism underpins CLS, making doctrinal research a prerequisite for CLS analysis. The materials used include CIL, treaties, precedent cases, and general principles of law. Neoliberalism plays a significant role in the CLS analysis of IIL. The CMS v Argentina Tribunal dismissed the plea of necessity, establishing a high threshold for invoking ARSIWA, indicative of a neoliberal bias aimed at preserving the neoliberal economic order. Conversely, the LG&E v Argentina Tribunal, while still imposing relatively stringent requirements for invoking ARSIWA, approved the national security defence based on the same facts. This Tribunal displayed hypocrisy by upholding a neoliberal bias while pursuing international capital's sustainable exploitation. The Unión v Egypt Tribunal dismissed the plea of necessity, adopting an ostrich policy by avoiding the issue of public safety, which resulted in a straw-man fallacy. This Tribunal appeared confused about neoliberalism after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and opted to hedge its bets. Issues such as the differences between ordoliberalism and neoliberalism, the European Union's Strategic Autonomy, and the hegemonic rivalry between the United States and China, may potentially shape a new structural bias in the Huawei v Sweden Tribunal.

European Commission's Reform Proposal Concerning The Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Comparative Analysis In November 2015, during negotiations with the USA about the investment chapter of TTIP, the European Commission presented US delegates with a text which significantly differs from the traditional model of ISDS. Commission's reform proposal is a reaction to the current criticism directed towards the legitimacy of investment arbitration and to the demands for its thorough reform or even removal from the TTIP draft text. The Commission introduced the proposal after the public consultation opened in connection with the criticism of ISDS attracted significant public interest. This thesis aims to analyze the Commission's proposal and determine whether the Commission has introduced a sound proposal which would be capable of replacing the traditional concept of ISDS. The thesis further examines whether there are smaller or larger differences between the Commission's proposal and traditional ISDS and whether the Commission could have taken a different approach to some issues. After the first chapter dedicated to the criticism of investment arbitration and the results of the public consultation, the thesis analyses the Commission's proposal. Most attention is given to its procedural aspects,...

<p>The master thesis provides a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the scope of most-favoured-nation clauses, focusing on the application of such clauses to dispute resolution mechanisms in bilateral investment treaty’s (BIT).</p><p>The ICSID decision in Maffezini was the first in a series to extend the scope of an MFN clause to dispute resolution in such context. Traditionally, such a clause had been relied on regarding substantive rights. The debate evoked by this and subsequent decisions of arbitral tribunals, which often conflict with each other in their outcome and in their analytic methodology, illustrates the controversy of this issue.</p>

The master thesis provides a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the scope of most-favoured-nation clauses, focusing on the application of such clauses to dispute resolution mechanisms in bilateral investment treaty’s (BIT). The ICSID decision in Maffezini was the first in a series to extend the scope of an MFN clause to dispute resolution in such context. Traditionally, such a clause had been relied on regarding substantive rights. The debate evoked by this and subsequent decisions of arbitral tribunals, which often conflict with each other in their outcome and in their analytic methodology, illustrates the controversy of this issue.

Malgré l’importance de l’exigence d’impartialité et sa reconnaissance universelle, sa mise en œuvre en matière d’arbitrage reste entourée de nombreuses incertitudes. En effet, les normes sur l’impartialité de l’arbitre (ex. : standard du doute raisonnable sur l’impartialité) sont généralement trop vagues pour fournir des directives claires aux organes devant les appliquer dans des hypothèses très variées. Dès lors, une étude mérite d’être menée afin de fournir à l’organe chargé d’évaluer l’impartialité de l’arbitre un support lui permettant de mieux accomplir sa mission. Pour ce faire, nous commencerons par distinguer les deux conceptions envisageables de l’impartialité : une conception pure et consensuelle (résistance aux tentations de partialité) et une conception élargie et ambitieuse (ouverture d’esprit à l’égard du litige). Ensuite, nous examinerons les principales questions émanant de la pratique de l’arbitrage. Seront ainsi analysés : l’identification des risques de partialité de l’arbitre à partir de ses actes, liens et opinions préalables ; le degré d’impartialité du coarbitre ; la renonciation à invoquer le risque de partialité. En étudiant chaque question, nous mettrons en évidence ses enjeux (notamment le besoin de prendre en considération les exigences de l’efficacité et de la qualité de l’arbitrage ainsi que le « droit » de chaque partie de nommer un arbitre) pour pouvoir ensuite en envisager les réponses possibles, notamment en nous inspirant des solutions consacrées par la jurisprudence française et étrangère. / Despite its importance and universal recognition, the principle of arbitrators’ impartiality is surrounded by many uncertainties, the main reason being that the applicable rules (e. g. reasonable doubts test) are often too vague to offer clear guidance to the authorities, given the diverse situations they have to apply them to. In order to provide them with a clearer guidance, there is a need to conduct a study on the arbitrators’ impartiality. To begin with, we will distinguish the two possible understandings of impartiality : the pure and consensual understanding (resistance to temptation to be partial) and the enlarged and ambitious understanding (open-mindedness towards the dispute’s issues). Then, we will study the practical issues stemming from arbitral practice. These issues revolve around : the assessment of impartiality on the basis of arbitrators’ acts, relationships and expressed views (the issue conflict question) ; the impartiality of party-appointed arbitrators ; the waiver of the right to invoke the risk of partiality. While studying each issue, we will highlight its stakes (especially the need to ensure the efficiency and quality of the arbitral justice as well as the need to preserve the “right” of each party to appoint an arbitrator) in order to contemplate possible answers, especially in the light of what has been decided in French and foreign case-law.

Is the choice of the arbitral seat still an important decision in international arbitration? Should arbitral awards be subject to greater judicial scrutiny? Should the appeal be in international arbitration? Is it possible that an annulled arbitral award is recognized under the New York Convention? Should the New York Convention be amended to achieve CNY 2.0? Is investment arbitration a system that works? Are the criticisms of investment arbitration valid? In this interview, Gary Born responds to each of these questions by addressing many controversial current issues in international arbitration. / ¿Es la elección de la sede del arbitraje todavía una decisión importante en el arbitraje internacional? ¿Deberían los laudos estar sometidos a un mayor escrutinio judicial? ¿Debería existir la apelación en el arbitraje internacional? ¿Es posible que en virtud de la Convención de Nueva York se reconozca un laudo anulado? ¿Debería enmendarse la Convención de Nueva York para lograr una CNY 2.0? ¿Es el arbitraje de inversiones un sistema que funciona? ¿Son las críticas al arbitraje de inversiones válidas? En la presente entrevista, Gary Born responde cada una de estas interrogantes tratando muchos temas polémicos de actualidad en el arbitraje internacional.