国际投资仲裁纠错机制困境之破局——构建国际投资仲裁上诉机制
Breaking the Deadlock of Error-Correction Mechanisms in International Investment Arbitration—Constructing an Appellate Mechanism for International Investment Arbitration
摘要: 国际投资仲裁的弊端随着国际投资仲裁案件数量的攀升而逐渐暴露，诸多国家对现有国际投资仲裁机制表达了质疑与不满。本应对国际投资仲裁裁决进行纠正的纠错机制却因其局限性而无法发挥其功能，导致国际投资仲裁的问题未得到有效解决。因此，为了突破既存纠错机制的困境并解决国际投资仲裁面临的问题，上诉机制因其理论优越性而成为重点讨论议题。在支持引入上诉机制的立场上，应当将上诉机制的审查范围扩大且不应在上诉机制中设立遵循先例制度。在各国提交的关于上诉机制引入模式的不同方案中应当选择常设多边上诉机制，并借鉴《基于条约的投资者–国家间仲裁透明度公约》的经验构建常设多边上诉机制引入路径。
Abstract: The drawbacks of international investment arbitration have gradually been exposed with the rising number of international investment arbitration cases, and many states have expressed doubts and dissatisfaction with the existing international investment arbitration mechanism. The error-correction mechanism, which is supposed to correct international investment arbitral awards, is unable to perform its function because of its limitations, with the result that the problems of international investment arbitration have not been effectively resolved. Therefore, in order to break through the predicament of the existing error-correction mechanism and solve the problems faced by international investment arbitration, the appellate mechanism has become a key topic of discussion because of its theoretical superiority. From the position of supporting the introduction of an appellate mechanism, the scope of review of the appellate mechanism should be expanded, and a precedent-following system should not be established within the appellate mechanism. Among the different proposals submitted by various states regarding the model for introducing an appellate mechanism, a permanent multilateral appellate mechanism should be chosen, and the path for introducing such a mechanism should be constructed by drawing on the experience of the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration.
文章引用：马跃. 国际投资仲裁纠错机制困境之破局——构建国际投资仲裁上诉机制[J]. 争议解决, 2026, 12(4): 25-36. https://doi.org/10.12677/ds.2026.124097

参考文献

[1] 肖威. ISDS机制变革的根源、趋势及中国方案[J]. 法治现代化研究, 2020, 4(5): 159-173.
[2] 梁丹妮, 戴蕾. 国际投资仲裁上诉机制可行性研究[J]. 武大国际法评论, 2020, 4(6): 98-118.
[3] Kahale, G. (2018) The Inaugural Brooklyn Lecture on International Business Law: ‘ISDS: The Wild, Wild West of International Practice’. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 44, 1-3.
[4] 凌晔. ICSID仲裁撤销程序的改革[J]. 苏州大学学报(法学版), 2021, 8(1): 126-134.
[5] Schreuer, C. (2011) From ICSID Annulment to Appeal Half Way down the Slippery Slope. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 10, 211-225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[6] Coe Jr., J.J. (2012) Book Review: Lucy Reed, Jan Paulsson, and Nigel Blackaby, Guide to ICSID Arbitration (2d Edition, 2011). Arbitration Law Review, 4, 158-169.
[7] Friedland, P. and Brumpton, P. (2012) Rabid Redux: The Second Wave of Abusive ICSID Annulments. American University International Law Review, 27, 727-737.
[8] Kim, D. (2011) The Annulment Committee’s Role in Multiplying Inconsistency in Arbitration: The Need to Move Away from an Annulment-Based System. New York University Law Review, 86, 247-248.
[9] Clapham, J. (2009) Finality of Investor-State Arbitral Awards: Has the Tide Turned and Is There a Need for Reform? Journal of International Arbitration, 26, 437-456.
[10] Schreuer, C.H. (2001) The ICSID Convention: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, 17-18.
[11] Schreuer, C. (2004) Three Generations of ICSID Annulment Proceedings. In: Gaillard, E. and Banifatemi, Y., Eds., Annulment of ICSID Awards, 17.
[12] 肖芳. 非ICSID投资条约仲裁司法审查的困境及其应对——以法院对投资条约的解释与适用为视角[J]. 环球法律评论, 2024, 46(1): 209-224.
[13] Hobér, K. and Eliasson, N. (2018) Review of Non-ICSID Awards by National Courts. In: Yannaca-Small, K., Ed., Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements, Oxford University Press, 759-796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[14] 曾令良, 江国青. 国际公法学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2022: 378.
[15] Thomas, J. and Dhillon, H. (2017) The Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration: The ICSID Convention, Investment Treaties and the Review of Arbitration Awards. ICSID Review, 32, 459-477.
[16] Drahozal, C.R. (1998) Judicial Incentives and the Appeals Process. Southern Methodist University Law Review, 51, 469-470.
[17] 肖军. 建立国际投资仲裁上诉机制的可行性研究——从中美双边投资条约谈判说起[J]. 法商研究, 2015, 32(2): 166-174.
[18] 秦晓静. 设立投资仲裁上诉机制的路径选择[J]. 政治与法律, 2021(2): 126-138.
[19] 王军杰. ICSID上诉机制建构的法理基础及制度选择[J]. 社会科学辑刊, 2018(5): 150-155.
[20] 刘笋. 论国际投资仲裁中的先例援引造法[J]. 政法论坛, 2020, 38(5): 64-78.
[21] Ten Cate, I.M. (2013) The Costs of Consistency: Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 51, Article 459.
[22] Stone Sweet, A. and Grisel, F. (2017) The Evolution of International Arbitration. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[23] Norton, P.M. (2018) The Role of Precedent in the Development of International Investment Law. ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, 33, 280-301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[24] Gal-Or, N. (2008) The Concept of Appeal in International Dispute Settlement. European Journal of International Law, 19, 43-65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[25] 刘瑛, 朱竹露. ISDS变革之常设上诉机制: 困境、价值与路径选择[J]. 法治社会, 2020(5): 23-35.
[26] 王丹, 刘敬东. 投资者-国家争端解决上诉机制改革新动向及中国因应[J]. 海峡法学, 2023, 25(1): 78-85.
[27] Bernardini, P. (2016) Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The Need to Balance Both Parties’ Interests. ICSID Review, 32, 38-57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 

为你推荐