Abstract

To the surprise of many, questions have recently arisen over the scope of inquiry, if any, that a national court may, consistent with Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, make in connection with the enforcement of an ICSID award. It has long been assumed in many, if not most, quarters that a national court is privileged to condition enforcement of an ICSID Convention award on a single simple requirement, viz. that the award be certified by the Secretary-General of ICSID. Until recently, doubts over whether that is so have been raised in a very small number of jurisdictions. But the Commission of the European Union has taken the view that an ICSID Convention award may be denied enforcement if it is contrary to a principle of “autonomy” of EU law and, based on its judgment in Achmea case in connection with non-ICSID awards, the European Court of Justice most likely takes the same view. This suggests that the European Union regards violation of EU public policy, more generally, as a defense to enforcement of an ICSID award. Based on text, object and purpose, legislative history, and predominant state practice, this position appears to run seriously afoul of the ICSID Convention. At the same time, some meaning must be given to the language in Article 54 according to which an ICSID award must be enforced by a national court “as if it were a final judgment of a court” of the enforcing State. The author finds that the understanding of Article 54 that best reflects all pertinent considerations is that it imposes on courts the modest requirement that they subject the enforcement of ICSID awards to no more restrictive or onerous procedures than they impose on the enforecement of national judgments.

中文翻译：

---

了解ICSID第54条

摘要

令许多人感到惊讶的是，最近出现了关于调查范围的问题，如果有的话，国家法院可以根据《 ICSID公约》第54条就执行ICSID裁决提出质疑。长期以来，在很多（即使不是大多数）地方，人们都假定国家法院有特权根据一个简单的要求即执行ICSID公约裁决。该奖项由国际投资争端解决中心秘书长认证。直到最近，在极少数的司法管辖区中，人们是否对此表示怀疑。但是，欧盟委员会认为，如果ICSID公约裁决违反欧盟法律的“自治”原则，并且基于Achmea的判决，则可以拒绝执行该裁决。与非国际投资争端解决中心裁决有关的案件，欧洲法院很可能持相同观点。这表明，欧盟更普遍地将违反欧盟公共政策视为对执行ICSID裁决的辩护。根据案文，目的和宗旨，立法历史以及主要的国家实践，这一立场似乎严重违反了《国际投资争端解决中心公约》。同时，必须对第54条中的语言赋予一定的含义，根据该语言，ICSID裁决必须由执行国的国家法院“好像是法院的最终判决”来执行。