Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article
Author
Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
Governments have recently incorporated foreign investment treaties into a so-called “Non-Precluded Measure Clause ", which permits action contrary to the provisions of the treaty in cases where the protection of essential interests is necessary. In this descriptive-analytical method, this article outlines the most important challenges and explains the ways to eliminate or reduce them. The most important findings of the study indicate that the government's authority in practice was not absolute, but observable. The host government must impartially resort to this clause and is always obliged to respect the good faith towards another party. Despite the disagreement expressed in the liability of the host States, the dominant approach of dispute settlement tribunals is to compensate the investor in proportion to the loss incurred by him. Governments have recently incorporated foreign investment treaties into a so-called “Non-Precluded Measure Clause ", which permits action contrary to the provisions of the treaty in cases where the protection of essential interests is necessary
Keywords
Main Subjects
فارسی
- باغبان، رحیم و محمدجعفد قنبری جهرمی و محمود باقری (1396)، «جنبه‌های حمایتی حقوق ایران در مورد سرمایه‌گذاری مستقیم خارجی و مطالعۀ تطبیقی با استانداردهای بین‌المللی»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی تطبیقی ایران و بین‌الملل، سال دهم، شماره سی و ششم.
- بهمئی، محمدعلی و نجمه تقوی (1395)، «حمایت از انتظارات مشروع سرمایه‌گذار و چالش‌های فراروی آن در حقوق بین الملل سرمایه‌گذاری»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 74.
- زمانی، سیدقاسم و ابوالفضل شیرعلی زاده (1398)، «اصول و رویۀ تفسیر معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی توسط محاکم داوری و ترجیح حقوق بین‌الملل بر حقوق داخلی»، مجلۀ حقوق دادگستری، شماره 105.
- عبداللهی، محسن (1390)، «رویکردهای نظام مسئولیت بین‌المللی در جبران خسارات ناشی از اعمال منع‌نشده در حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 56.
- محبی، محسن (1386)، مباحثی از حقوق نفت و گاز در پرتو رویه داوری بین‌المللی، سلب مالکیت و غرامت در قراردادهای نفتی، تهران: مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش.
- میهمی، مهدی (1398)، «انتظارات مشروع سرمایه‌گذار در تقابل با منافع اساسی کشور میزبان و تحلیل آن به عنوان ریسک سیاسی»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال هشتم، شماره 28.
انگلیسی
- Briese, Robyn & Schill, Stephan (2009), “Djibouti v France: Self-judging Clauses before the International Court of Justice”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1.
- Burke-White, William W. & Staden, Andreas Von (2008), “Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 48, Issue. 2.
- Fukunaga, Yuka (2012), “Standard of Review and Scientific Truths in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and Investment Arbitration”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 3, No. 3.
- Pathirana, Dilini & McLaughlin, Mark (2020), “Non-precluded Measures Clauses: Regime, Trends, and Practice”, In book: Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, Publisher: Springer.
- Ranjan, Prabhash (2016), “Protecting Security Interests in International Investment Law” in Mary Footer, Julia Schmidt, and Nigel D. White, eds., Security and International Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Schill, Stephan and Briese, Robyn (2009), “If the state considers”: Self-judging clauses in international dispute settlement”, Max Planck UNYB, Vol. 13.
- Sinha, Amit Kumar (2016), “Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties of South Asian Countries”, Asian Journal of International Law.
- Wang, Wei (2017), “The Non-Precluded Measure Type Clause in International Investment Agreements: Significances, Challenges, and Reactions”, ICSID Review, Vol. 32, No. 2.
Reports & Awards and Treaties
- Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019.
- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, (May 12, 2005).
- Continental Casualty Company v. argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award of 5 September 2008.
- Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, (May 22, 2007).
- General Assembly resolution 3071 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973.
- LG & E Energy Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. Arb/02/1, Decision on Liability, 2006.
- Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Report, 1986.
- Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), ICJ Report, 2003.
- Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, (Sept. 28, 2007).
- United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Panel Report, WT/DS285/R (10 November 2004).
)