Over the past ten years, commentators have drawn an analogy between the international investment regime and domestic public law in order to fill gaps, resolve ambiguities, and understand the nature of the investment regime. One way in which domestic public law may be relevant is if it reflects a general principle of law that is applicable by virtue of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The practice of international investment tribunals demonstrates, however, that tribunals do not use domestic law according to the ‘general principles method’. Instead, investment tribunals’ use of comparative law raises various normative and methodological issues that have not yet been thoroughly addressed in the literature. The article identifies and addresses some of those issues.

中文翻译：

---

国际投资法与公法类比：一般原则方法的谬误

过去十年，评论家将国际投资制度与国内公法进行类比，以填补空白、化解歧义，了解投资制度的本质。国内公法可能具有相关性的一种方式是，它是否反映了根据《维也纳条约法公约》第 31(3)(c)条适用的一般法律原则。然而，国际投资法庭的实践表明，法庭不会根据“一般原则方法”使用国内法。相反，投资法庭对比较法的使用引发了文献中尚未彻底解决的各种规范和方法论问题。本文确定并解决了其中一些问题。