Abstract

Investment treaty arbitration is currently undergoing a backlash, precipitated in large measure by the problem of inconsistency in investment awards. Inconsistent reasoning and decisions have proved particularly problematic when different shareholders of an affected company pursue claims for reflective loss before different tribunals concerning the same dispute. This article examines two recent investment treaty cases—CC/Devas v India and Deutsche Telekom v India—that are a critical example of this very real problem.The first part of this article assesses the inconsistent interpretation and application of essential security interest clauses in those cases. As this article shows, the disagreement between the tribunals is explained by contradictory assessments of the same facts.The second part critically evaluates the impact of the two cases on the development of the precise criteria for successfully invoking an essential security interest clause. Such clauses comprise two elements: (i) the existence of such an interest; and (ii) the nexus between the interest and the measure adopted. These elements have hitherto been subject to inconsistent interpretations, leaving the exact contours of such clauses unclear. This article uncovers which security interests can qualify as ‘essential’ interests, focusing particularly on the question whether such an interest encompasses protection of strategic resources for military and non-military use. It also examines the meaning of the nexus requirement of ‘necessary’, and explores the difference(s) between the nexus requirements of ‘directed to’ and ‘necessary’.

中文翻译：

---

在投资条约仲裁中“基本担保权益”条款不一致适用的归还：CC / Devas诉印度和Deutsche Telekom诉印度

摘要

投资条约仲裁目前正受到强烈反对，这在很大程度上是由于投资裁决的不一致问题而引起的。当受影响公司的不同股东就同一纠纷在不同的法庭上要求反射性损失的索赔时，推理和决策不一致特别容易成为问题。本文研究了两个最近的投资条约案例-CC / Devas v India和Deutsche Telekom v India—这是这个非常实际问题的关键示例。本文的第一部分评估了在这种情况下基本担保权益条款的不一致解释和适用。正如本文所显示的，法庭之间的分歧是通过对相同事实的相互矛盾的评估来解释的。第二部分严格评估了这两个案件对成功调用基本担保权益条款的精确标准的影响。这些条款包括两个要素：（i）这种利益的存在；（ii）利息与所采取措施之间的联系。迄今为止，这些要素的解释不一致，因此不清楚这些条款的确切轮廓。本文揭示了哪些担保权益可以视为“基本”权益，特别关注这一利益是否包括保护军事和非军事用途的战略资源的问题。它还检查了“必要”的联系要求的含义，并探讨了“直接针对”和“必要”的联系要求之间的区别。