摘要
在国际投资仲裁实践中,联合解释条款的适用引发了诸多争议。一方面,联合解释条款与一般条约解释规则之间的关系尚不明晰,导致各仲裁庭在其效力认定上各执一词;另一方面,联合解释条款作为缔约国合意的产物,仲裁庭是否有权对其进行审查同样存疑。联合解释条款的性质界定问题相应地应从双重视角分析纾解。首先有必要明确联合解释条款的特别法性质,结合特别法适用的国际法规则,对联合解释条款的效力进行确认;其次需要澄清联合解释条款的可审查性,以此厘清缔约国与仲裁庭解释权力的界线。对于中国而言,现行生效的国际投资条约中的联合解释条款数量较少且结构单一,不利于充分发挥其功效。我国应当采取“一般联合解释+多个特殊联合解释”的联合解释范式作为范本,对其进行完善。
In the practice of international investment arbitration,the application of joint interpretation clauses has sparked numerous controversies.On the one hand,the relationship between joint interpretation clauses and general treaty interpretation rules remains unclear,leading to differing views held by arbitration tribunals on their validity.On the other hand,since joint interpretation clauses are products of the parties'agreement,it is also questionable whether tribunals have the authority to review them.This article argues that joint interpretation clauses should be recognized as lex specialis relative to the general interpretation rules under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(lex generalis).Therefore,the effect of joint interpretation clauses should be given priority in application.While functioning as lex specialis,they also complement general law,ensuring the reasonableness and consistency of treaty interpretation.In other words,even in the presence of joint interpretation clauses,tribunals may still consider other agreements or practices reached by the parties subsequent to such clauses when interpreting treaties,albeit these agreements or practices do not carry the same binding force as the joint interpretation clauses.Regarding the second controversy,whether tribunals can review the joint interpretation clauses established by the contracting parties depends on their jurisdiction.Although tribunals are established based on the mutual consent and authorization of the arbitration parties,their operational model and adjudicative mechanism function as independent adjudicative entities.Without the authorization to perform such reviews,tribunals would lose their individual value and functional reliance as dispute resolution institutions and the arbitration process itself would be unable to achieve its purpose of resolving disputes.When reviewing joint interpretation clauses,tribunals should follow a comprehensive set of criteria,including clarity,specificity,and the parties'intent.Provided that joint interpretation clauses have a clear legal nature and are capable of resolving specific disputes,they can be given priority as lex specialis;otherwise,tribunals should revert to the general framework of international law to ensure the fairness of the adjudication.For China,the existing international investment treaties in force contain relatively few joint interpretation clauses and are structurally simplistic,which hinders their full effectiveness.China should adopt a joint interpretation paradigm of "general joint interpretation plus multiple special joint interpretations"as a model for improvement.The wording of joint interpretation clauses can also serve as a necessary means for China to enhance its international influence.
出处
《环球法律评论》
北大核心
2025年第1期188-203,共16页
Global Law Review
