Sovereign States have had to take drastic measures to contain the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including measures severely restricting the operation of businesses in their territory. In addition, and because of, the public health crisis, States will be forced to take a series of measures to stimulate their economies. These measures are likely to affect investments that benefit from international investment protection, leading these investors to contemplate initiating arbitration proceedings against the host State. This article examines whether, when faced with such claims, host States will be able to resort to the doctrine of necessity under customary international law to defend the measures that they have taken. In doing so, it draws on the application of the doctrine of necessity in international investment arbitration so far, including its application to disputes arising out of the Argentine financial crisis. The article proposes a more analytical approach to the doctrine of necessity in customary international law, which will be vital if the doctrine is to remain relevant as a measure of last resort to which States can turn when faced with a crisis.

中文翻译：

---

由于 COVID-19 作为对国际投资索赔的辩护的“必要性”

主权国家不得不采取严厉措施遏制 SARS-CoV-2 病毒的传播，包括严格限制其领土内企业经营的措施。此外，由于公共卫生危机，各国将被迫采取一系列措施来刺激其经济。这些措施可能会影响受益于国际投资保护的投资，导致这些投资者考虑对东道国提起仲裁程序。本文探讨了在面对此类主张时，东道国是否能够诉诸习惯国际法下的必要性原则来捍卫其已采取的措施。在此过程中，它借鉴了迄今为止国际投资仲裁中必要性原则的适用，包括它对阿根廷金融危机引起的争议的适用。文章对习惯国际法中的必要性原则提出了一种更具分析性的方法，如果该原则要作为国家在面临危机时可以求助的最后手段保持相关性，这一点将是至关重要的。