午夜香吻高清视频在线看|国产乱人伦偷精品视频|999国产精品麻豆久久久|国产二区日韩精品成人动漫|糖心vlog该看糖心了|国产成人无码AV在线播放DVD|国产亚洲天堂网站|又大又粗欧美黑人a片|91精品福利看片|www.尤物在线,国产中文精品成人,99国产传媒,亚洲国产成人AV网站

自華盛頓公約于1993年對中國生效以來，作為全球利用外資最多的國家之一，中國被外國投資者申請至國際投資爭端解決中心（ICSID）仲裁的案件僅有兩起，其中最新一起是2017年3月9日公布裁決報(bào)告的韓國安城公司案。在當(dāng)前中韓關(guān)系敏感時(shí)期，該案尤其引人關(guān)注。

仲裁庭審理認(rèn)定的事實(shí)如下：2006年12月12日，韓國安城公司與江蘇省射陽港口產(chǎn)業(yè)園區(qū)管委會(huì)簽訂關(guān)于高爾夫球場及豪華附屬設(shè)施開發(fā)的投資協(xié)議，項(xiàng)目分兩期進(jìn)行，用地共計(jì)3000畝（一二期工程各用地1500畝）。項(xiàng)目動(dòng)工建設(shè)不久，中國房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)政策發(fā)生變化，園區(qū)管委會(huì)表示不能按照投資協(xié)議約定的價(jià)格向安城公司提供一期工程所需300畝土地，要求其公開競買。一期工程竣工后，園區(qū)管委會(huì)未及時(shí)提供二期用地。安城公司于2011年10月將項(xiàng)目低價(jià)轉(zhuǎn)讓給了一家中國公司。2014年10月7日，安城公司根據(jù)中韓雙邊投資保護(hù)協(xié)定（中韓BIT）向ICSID申請仲裁。

2016年9月15日，中方代理人根據(jù)ICSID仲裁規(guī)則第41（5）條，在首次開庭審理前提出了初步反對意見，認(rèn)為安城公司申請仲裁的時(shí)間超過了中韓BIT第9（7）條規(guī)定的三年仲裁時(shí)效，且中韓BIT中的最惠國待遇條款不適用于仲裁時(shí)效，其仲裁請求顯然不具法律價(jià)值。安城公司代理人答辯稱其在知道損害后的兩年半時(shí)間內(nèi)向中方政府提交了意向通知，并未超過仲裁時(shí)效，即使超過，其有權(quán)援引中韓BIT最惠國待遇條款，適用較長的仲裁時(shí)效。

概而言之，雙方的爭議焦點(diǎn)集中在以下兩個(gè)問題上：

1. 超過仲裁時(shí)效的仲裁請求是否構(gòu)成“顯然不具法律價(jià)值”？

中方代理人基于兩方面的理由認(rèn)為本案仲裁請求“顯然不具法律價(jià)值”，一是認(rèn)為安城公司仲裁申請材料支持其仲裁請求的事實(shí)只需要“不可信、輕率、無理取鬧、不準(zhǔn)確”或者“存在惡意”，而無需達(dá)到“明顯輕率或者荒謬”的程度；二是時(shí)效反對。

安城公司代理人則認(rèn)為“顯然不具法律價(jià)值”僅適用于清晰明顯的毫無根據(jù)的請求，其在意向通知和仲裁申請書中披露的事實(shí)滿足中韓BIT第9（7）條的時(shí)效要求。

2. 最惠國待遇條款是否適用于仲裁時(shí)效問題？

中韓BIT第9（7）條規(guī)定“[締約一方]投資者不得自首次知道或應(yīng)當(dāng)知道其遭受損失或損害之日起三年以后提出仲裁請求”，同時(shí)第三條規(guī)定締約一方應(yīng)當(dāng)在其境內(nèi)給予締約另一方投資者及其投資以不低于任何第三國投資者及其投資的待遇（最惠國待遇條款）。

安城公司代理人認(rèn)為最惠國待遇條款的作用為授權(quán)投資者援引其他條約中的實(shí)體權(quán)利，即便將時(shí)效問題定性為程序性事項(xiàng)，以往ICSID仲裁實(shí)踐亦傾向于適用最惠國待遇條款。

中方代理人則主要辯稱中韓BIT第三條的適用范圍限于“投資和經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)”，即包括“投資擴(kuò)張、運(yùn)營、管理、維護(hù)、使用、收益、出售或其他處置行為”，而不適用于爭端解決事項(xiàng)。

仲裁庭意見

關(guān)于爭議焦點(diǎn)一，仲裁庭認(rèn)可安城公司代理人主張的事實(shí)并未“不可信、輕率、無理取鬧、不準(zhǔn)確”或者“存在惡意”，而徑直以仲裁時(shí)效已過、缺乏屬時(shí)管轄權(quán)為由，接受了中方代理人的初步反對意見。

關(guān)于爭議焦點(diǎn)二，仲裁庭認(rèn)為中韓BIT第三條的字面文義已經(jīng)清晰地表明最惠國待遇不能延伸適用至締約一方與締約另一方投資者的投資仲裁事項(xiàng)，特別是不能適用于中韓BIT第9（7）條的仲裁時(shí)效，文義解釋已經(jīng)足夠清晰，沒有必要進(jìn)一步考慮其他觀點(diǎn)或其他含有最惠國待遇條款的條約和條約實(shí)踐。

簡短評析

該案所涉及的爭議由中國房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)政策的變動(dòng)而引發(fā)，在供給側(cè)改革不斷深入的背景下，無論是中國政府還是中國境外的投資者都有必要高度重視投資爭議解決，維護(hù)國家利益和海外投資權(quán)益。管中窺豹，本案啟示如下：

第一，高度重視BITs文本的精細(xì)化研究。中方代理人對本案所涉中韓BIT中最惠國待遇條款的適用范圍、“首次知道或應(yīng)當(dāng)知道遭受損失之日”、“提出請求”等關(guān)鍵術(shù)語的文義和體系解釋，對仲裁庭支持中方代理人的初步反對意見起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。在中國對外締結(jié)的BITs數(shù)量眾多的背景下，應(yīng)當(dāng)尤其注意對文本本身的研究和約文的文義和體系解釋的精細(xì)化研究。

第二，盡快熟悉國際投資仲裁規(guī)則，減少訴累和成本。有關(guān)國際投資爭議解決的國際條約（如ICSID公約、MIGA公約和BITs等）不可能詳盡規(guī)定仲裁規(guī)則，而由仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)制定。本案適用ICSID仲裁規(guī)則，中方代理人利用了該規(guī)則中的初步反對條款，成功地以安城公司的仲裁請求“顯然不具法律價(jià)值”為由，說服仲裁庭決定接受初步反對意見，并據(jù)此做出有利裁決，而沒有被拖入實(shí)質(zhì)審理階段而徒費(fèi)成本。

第三，全面掌握國際投資仲裁案例。雖然包括ICSID在內(nèi)的仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)和仲裁庭反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)仲裁并無類似英美法國家的司法先例制度，但不可否認(rèn)的是，無論是當(dāng)事人還是仲裁庭，均會(huì)援引先前的裁決佐證、支持或論證自己的觀點(diǎn)，其說服力亦不容忽視。

Ansung Housing v China?administered by ICSID

Over two decades since the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) became effective on China, the country has always been one of the host states that has utilized the largest quantities of foreign investment in the world.

However, only two investment arbitration cases have been filed by foreign investors against China with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

In one of these cases,?Ansung Housing v China, the arbitral award was issued on 9 March 2017.

The facts described in the award are as follows:?On 12 December 2006, the South Korean company Ansung Housing entered into an investment agreement on a golf course and condominium development project in Sheyang-Xian with the Communist Party of the Sheyang Harbor Industrial Zone Administration Committee (the committee). The project construction was in two phases, each of which would occupy 1,500 mu (100 hectares) of land.

Shortly after the commencement of the first phase of the project, Chinese policies on real estate development changed, the committee could no longer provide the 300 mu of land necessary for the first phase at the price agreed in the investment agreement and Ansung would have to apply for land use rights through a public sale at higher prices. After the completion of the first phase, the committee didn’t provide the additional land necessary for the second phase.

Consequently, in October 2011, Ansung had to sell its assets in the golf business to a Chinese purchaser at a low price. On 7 October 2014, Ansung filed a request for arbitration with the ICSID on the basis of the agreement between the governments of the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (China-Korea BIT or the treaty) that entered into force on 1 December 2007.

On September 15, 2016, before the First Session, China’s representatives filed the respondent’s objection pursuant to ICSID arbitration rule 41(5), contending that Ansung’s claims under the China-Korea BIT manifestly lacked legal merit and should be dismissed. They reasoned that Ansung instituted the ICSID arbitration more than three years after the date on which it first acquired knowledge that it had incurred loss or damage, rendering the claim time-barred under article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT. The Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment (MFN clause) in the treaty couldn’t save Ansung’s untimely claims.

Ansung’s representatives argued that they had met the prescribed three-year time limit on the claim because it served its notice of intent in two-and-a-half years from the date on which it knew the losses had been incurred. Moreover, regardless of the tribunal’s determination, the China-Korea BIT’s MFN clause also allowed Ansung to take advantage of more favorable treatment in any other BITs concluded by China with respect to the time requirement.

In general, the dispute mainly focuses on the following two legal issues:

1. Does the claim that beyond arbitration limitation period constitute “manifestly without legal merit”?

China’s representatives alleged that Ansung’s claims were “manifestly without legal merit” based on the following two reasons: (a) the factual background in the claims advanced by Ansung only shall be “incredible, frivolous, vexatious or inaccurate or made in bad faith” instead of “patently frivolous or absurd”; (b) the objection of limitation period. Ansung’s representatives argued that the factual background set out in its notice of intent and request for arbitration meets the temporal requirement of article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT at a prima facie level.

2. Does the MFN clause apply to the question of time limitation?

The text of article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT bears repeating: “An investor may not make a claim pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article if more than three years have elapsed from the date on which the investor first acquired, or should have first acquired, the knowledge that the investor had incurred losses or damage.” Moreover, article 3 provides: each contracting party shall in its territory accord to investors of the other contracting party – and to their investments and activities associated with such investments by the investors of the other contracting party – treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like circumstances to the investors and investments.

Ansung’s representatives noted that MFN clauses operate to allow investors to import substantive rights from other treaties. Also, even if the three-year period is considered to be procedural rather than substantive, according to the case law in the ICSID, the tribunal is more likely to import the MFN clause.

China’s representatives contended that the wording of article 3 limits MFN treatment to the host state’s territory and covers only “investment and business activities” which is defined as “the expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment, and sale or other disposal of investments”, and does not include dispute settlement.

THE TRIBUNAL’S ANALYSIS

Concerning the first disputed issue, the tribunal accepts the facts pleaded by Ansung’s representatives are not incredible, frivolous, vexatious or inaccurate or made in bad faith. At the same time, the tribunal accepts the preliminary objection advanced by China’s representatives by a decision regarding manifest without legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction.

With regard to the second disputed issue, the tribunal finds that the wording of the MFN clause shall not be extended to MFN treatment for a state’s consent to arbitrate with investors and, in particular, not to the temporal limitation period for investor-state arbitration in article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT. So it is unnecessary to give further consideration to additional arguments or previous arbitral decisions on the interpretation of other MFN clauses or treaty practice.?

COMMENTS ON THE CASE

The case was triggered by policy changes amid the backdrop of a hot real estate industry in China. Considering the structural reforms on the supply side in industries across China, it is necessary to attach great importance to investment dispute resolution for both the government and investors, protecting their rights and interests in inbound and outbound investments. To sum up, lessons should be learned from this case as follows:

Firstly, targeted studies of proper wording in BITs are necessary. The semantic and systematic interpretation of the application of MFN clauses, the “date on which the investor first acquired, or should have first acquired” and “making a claim” lays great significance on gaining the tribunal’s support on the China representatives’ preliminary objections. Chinese practitioners should pay more attention to the targeted studies of semantic and systematic interpretation of the articles and texts considering the massive quantities of BITs in China.

Secondly, Chinese practitioners should keep a close eye on investment arbitration as well as the prevailing practice and rules, and be capable of cutting litigation exhaustion and maintaining reasonable costs. Treaties related to international investment dispute resolution such as the ICSID Convention, the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and the BITs usually do not contain detailed arbitration rules, leaving much more room for arbitration institutions to adopt their own regulations. In the case above, instead of being dragged into prolonged proceedings, China’s representatives successfully argued for dismissal by making use of the preliminary objection clause in the ICSID arbitration rules and stating the objection of “manifestly without legal merit”. Not only is the arbitration cost saved, but also the favorable award is thus assured.

Thirdly, Chinese practitioners need to keep up with jurisprudence and precedents of investment arbitration. Although arbitration institutions such as the ICSID and many other tribunals repeatedly denied the stare decisis in investment arbitration, it is a simple fact that parties and tribunals frequently recourse to the arbitral precedents to support their claims and defences. The persuasive influence of the arbitral precedents shall not be ignored.

作者：北京仲裁委員會(huì)/北京國際仲裁中心仲裁員、陽光時(shí)代律師事務(wù)所合伙人楊衛(wèi)東。北仲仲裁秘書王綿對本文亦有貢獻(xiàn)