Abstract

Article 43 of the ICSID Convention provides tribunals with the power to order the production of further evidence. Although that power has not been used frequently, previous cases show that when article 43 is invoked by tribunals, they seem to err in the way in which they use it. This leads to a lack of consistency and clarity in the application of the provision.This article examines the use of article 43 in two types of cases and suggests two limitations on its use. First, it examines cases in which article 43 was used by tribunals to appoint an independent expert and shows that the provision cannot be used by tribunals to do so.Second, it looks at scenarios in which article 43 was used by tribunals in a way that added disputed questions, which were not part of the parties’ submissions and which consequently expanded the boundaries of the dispute. It suggests that article 43 cannot be invoked when that is the case. To reach this conclusion, the article will examine cases in which the use of article 43 was considered in order to investigate allegations of corruption.

中文翻译：

---

《 ICSID公约》第43条的限制：法庭的（无限制）文书？

摘要

《 ICSID公约》第43条赋予法庭命令下令提供进一步证据的权力。尽管这种权力没有得到经常使用，但以前的案例表明，当法庭援引第43条时，它们似乎会误用它的使用方式。这导致该规定的适用缺乏一致性和明确性。本文研究了在两种情况下对第43条的使用，并提出了对其使用的两个限制。首先，它审查了法庭使用第43条任命一名独立专家的情况，并表明该规定不能被法庭用来任命独立专家;其次，审查了法庭使用第43条的情况是添加了有争议的问题，这些问题不属于当事方的陈述，因此扩大了争议的范围。它建议，在这种情况下，不能援引第43条。为了得出这个结论，本条将审查为调查腐败指控而考虑使用第43条的情况。