摘要
AMTO诉乌克兰案是投资者-国家间争端解决机制实践中具有标志性价值的案件。本案仲裁庭在程序上围绕管辖权和反诉、在实体问题上围绕《能源宪章条约》第10条中的诸多条款展开分析。仲裁庭在恰当地对实体及程序问题进行了分析之后,驳回了申请人的全部仲裁请求,只认可其在管辖权问题上的成功。本案有两个问题值得进一步分析,其一是模糊的保护伞条款的适用边界到底为何,其二是ISDS反诉机制的适用有何必要条件。本文对AMTO诉乌克兰案的事实背景、争议焦点、裁决结果进行梳理,并作简要评析。
The AMTO v.Ukraine case is a landmark case in ISDS practice.The arbitral tribunal in this case centered its analysis around provisions in Article 10 of the ECT and briefly addressed the application of the counterclaim mechanism in this case in terms of procedure.After properly analyzing the substantive and procedural issues,the tribunal dismissed the claimant's arbitration claim in its entirety,recognizing its success only on the issue of jurisdiction.Two issues in this case deserve in-depth analysis:what are the boundaries of the application of the vague umbrella clause,and what are the necessary conditions for the application of the ISDS counterclaim mechanism.In this paper,the factual background,controversial points,and award results of the AMTO v.Ukraine case are sorted out and briefly reviewed.
出处
《商事仲裁与调解》
2023年第5期109-122,共14页
Commercial Arbitration & Mediation
基金
中国贸促会法律部《投资仲裁案例分析汇编》项目的部分研究成果
关键词
国际投资仲裁
保护伞条款
ISDS反诉机制
international investment arbitration
umbrella clause
ISDS counterclaim mechanism
