国际投资仲裁发轫于国际商事仲裁,但二者之间存在不小的差异,因此对国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查应区别于对商事仲裁裁决的司法审查。国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查宜遵循全面审查原则,法院在对条约进行解释时宜力求探索双方当事人缔约时...国际投资仲裁发轫于国际商事仲裁,但二者之间存在不小的差异,因此对国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查应区别于对商事仲裁裁决的司法审查。国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查宜遵循全面审查原则,法院在对条约进行解释时宜力求探索双方当事人缔约时原意。当前我国国内城市被选为仲裁地竞争力不足,国内仲裁机构和仲裁员缺乏参与国际投资仲裁实践经验,在签订部分对外投资协定时,未明确规定透明度条款,立法上我国对临时仲裁的态度不明,亦未明确规定仲裁裁决国籍判断标准等,上述问题导致我国国内法院无权或无法有效对国际投资仲裁裁决进行司法审查,不利于提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的话语权,就此本文提出一些可能的解决方案,以期完善我国对投资仲裁裁决的司法审查制度,提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的地位。International investment arbitration originated from international commercial arbitration, but there are significant differences between the two. Therefore, judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should be distinguished from that of commercial arbitration awards. Judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should adhere to the principle of comprehensive review, and courts should strive to uncover the original intent of the contracting parties when interpreting treaties. Currently, cities in China lack competitiveness as venues for arbitration. Domestic arbitration institutions and arbitrators have limited experience in international investment arbitration practice. Some foreign investment agreements signed by China do not explicitly stipulate transparency clauses. Additionally, China’s legislative stance on ad hoc arbitration is unclear, and the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitration awards are not explicitly defined. These issues result in domestic courts either lacking jurisdiction or being unable to effectively conduct judicial review of international investment arbitration awards, which undermines China’s discourse power in the field of international investment arbitration. This paper proposes several possible solutions to address these challenges, aiming to improve China’s judicial review system for investment arbitration on awards and enhance the country’s standing in the field of international investment arbitration.展开更多
文摘国际投资仲裁发轫于国际商事仲裁,但二者之间存在不小的差异,因此对国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查应区别于对商事仲裁裁决的司法审查。国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查宜遵循全面审查原则,法院在对条约进行解释时宜力求探索双方当事人缔约时原意。当前我国国内城市被选为仲裁地竞争力不足,国内仲裁机构和仲裁员缺乏参与国际投资仲裁实践经验,在签订部分对外投资协定时,未明确规定透明度条款,立法上我国对临时仲裁的态度不明,亦未明确规定仲裁裁决国籍判断标准等,上述问题导致我国国内法院无权或无法有效对国际投资仲裁裁决进行司法审查,不利于提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的话语权,就此本文提出一些可能的解决方案,以期完善我国对投资仲裁裁决的司法审查制度,提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的地位。International investment arbitration originated from international commercial arbitration, but there are significant differences between the two. Therefore, judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should be distinguished from that of commercial arbitration awards. Judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should adhere to the principle of comprehensive review, and courts should strive to uncover the original intent of the contracting parties when interpreting treaties. Currently, cities in China lack competitiveness as venues for arbitration. Domestic arbitration institutions and arbitrators have limited experience in international investment arbitration practice. Some foreign investment agreements signed by China do not explicitly stipulate transparency clauses. Additionally, China’s legislative stance on ad hoc arbitration is unclear, and the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitration awards are not explicitly defined. These issues result in domestic courts either lacking jurisdiction or being unable to effectively conduct judicial review of international investment arbitration awards, which undermines China’s discourse power in the field of international investment arbitration. This paper proposes several possible solutions to address these challenges, aiming to improve China’s judicial review system for investment arbitration on awards and enhance the country’s standing in the field of international investment arbitration.
