当前位置: X-MOL 学术Asian Journal of International Law › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Police Powers, Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Law, and Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT: A Critique of Philip Morris v. Uruguay
Asian Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2018-09-11 , DOI: 10.1017/s2044251318000139
Prabhash RANJAN

Given the global contestation against BITs and ISDS, the outcome of thePhilip Morrisv.Uruguaycase upholding Uruguay’s right to regulate for public health is important for the international investment law community. However, it is not just the outcome of a case but also the quality of legal reasoning that is significant in building the legitimacy of the ISDS system. This paper focuses on the reasoning adopted by the tribunal in deciding whether Uruguay’s regulatory measures resulted in the expropriation of Philip Morris’s investment. The paper critiques the tribunal’s use of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to invoke the police powers rule in interpreting the expropriation provision of the Switzerland-Uruguay BIT. The tribunal’s reasoning was internally inconsistent and based on abuse of arbitral precedents. Clarity in legal reasoning by ISDS tribunals is imperative to boost the legitimacy of the ISDS system for all stakeholders.

中文翻译:

国际投资法中的警察权力、间接征用和 VCLT 第 31(3)(c) 条:对菲利普莫里斯诉乌拉圭案的批判

鉴于全球对 BITs 和 ISDS 的争论,菲利普莫里斯五。乌拉圭维护乌拉圭公共健康监管权的案例对国际投资法界很重要。然而,对于建立 ISDS 系统的合法性而言,不仅是案件的结果,而且法律推理的质量也很重要。本文重点讨论仲裁庭在决定乌拉圭的监管措施是否导致菲利普莫里斯公司的投资被没收时所采用的推理。该文件批评法庭使用《维也纳条约法公约》第 31(3)(c) 条援引警察权力规则来解释瑞士-乌拉圭双边投资条约的征用条款。仲裁庭的推理在内部不一致,并且基于滥用仲裁先例。
更新日期:2018-09-11
down
wechat
bug