敗訴：黑龍江國際經濟技術合作公司等訴蒙古政府案

據IAR本月7日報道，久拖不決的黑龍江國際經濟技術合作公司等訴蒙古政府案（International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp. and others v. Republic of Mongolia）已於近日結案，仲裁庭就中蒙BIT中的限制性同意條款作出狹義解釋，進而裁定仲裁庭對本案無管轄權。

以下為IAR報道原文：

MONGOLIA PREVAILS IN LONG-RUNNING CHINESE BIT ARBITRATION, AS ARBITRATORS DISTINGUISH THEIR READING OF CONSTRICTED JURISDICTION CLAUSE FROM MORE GENEROUS READINGS IN PRIOR CASES

Jul 07, 2017 | By Luke Eric Peterson

In a new award, an ad-hoc tribunal comprised of Peter Tomka (chair), Yas Banifatemi (claimant』s nominee) and Mark Clodfelter (respondent』s nominee) havedeclined jurisdiction over a long-running claim by a trio of Chinese investors against the Republic of Mongolia.

The development comes in the case of China Heilongjiang International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp. and others v. Republic of Mongolia.

The three Chinese investors in the Tumurtei iron ore mineturned to arbitration in 2010 following the cancellation of a key license in 2009.

(The case had been slowed by, among other things, the late-stage resignation of the prior chairman, whose law firm was elsewhere acting in another case, Sanum v. Laos, that raised similar treaty interpretation issues.)

As yet, the arbitralaward rendered by the tribunal is not public.

However, a press release issued by the respondent』s counsel on July 5, 2017 has indicated that thethree arbitrators were unanimous in their decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

While we have yet to see the award, it appears from this public statement thatthe tribunal has held that a 「narrow」 reading of the BIT』s jurisdictional clause–allowing for arbitration only in relation to the amount of compensation due for an established expropriation– is nevertheless consistent with the 「effet utile」 interpretive principle. (In other similar-type cases, certain tribunals have cautioned against depriving the jurisdictional provisions of similarly-worded treaties of any force or utility by dint of a too-narrow reading.)

Rather than reproduce Mongolian counsel』s press release at further length, we will simply direct readers to it (here).

In due course, we hope to report in detail on the reasoning of the tribunal.

The claimants in this case were represented by Freshfields. Mongolia was represented by Milbank.

附《中蒙BIT》第8.3條：

If a disputeinvolvingthe amount of compensation for expropriationcannot besettled within six months after resort to negotiations as specified in paragraph 1 ofthis Article, it may be submitted at the request of either party to an ad hoc arbitraltribunal. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if the investor concernedhas resorted to the procedure specified in the paragraph 2 of this Article.

從上述規定來看，本案與此前謝業深案及北京城建案所涉的中秘、中也BIT同意條款類似，但與前二者仲裁庭做出了廣義解釋不同的是，本案中仲裁庭對此作出了狹義解釋。由於裁決未予公開，其具體理由尚未可知。從被告方法律顧問發表的聲明來看，仲裁庭作出狹義解釋（即僅允許仲裁涉及既定徵收的賠償金額）似乎是基於條約有效解釋原則（the 「effet utile」 interpretive principle），但細節不明。

本案可能的兩點啟示：

其一，投資仲裁庭就相同或類似條款在解釋方法和結果上的不一致現象依然突出，凸顯改革必要。

其二，中國老舊BIT中的限制性同意條款，不利於保護中國海外投資者利益。作為世界第二大資本輸出國，宜儘快調整。

整理、點評：武漢大學海外投資法律研究中心 漆彤

關注本公眾號

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！