Abstract

An investor–State tribunal formed under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) may be called upon to determine its jurisdiction ratione temporis based on various ‘critical dates’ such as: the date of entry into force of the BIT; the date when the investment was made; the date when the investor acquired the requisite nationality; the date of the alleged breach; the date when the investor first acquired knowledge of the alleged breach and of its loss; and/or the date when the dispute arose. When confronted with such temporal issues, tribunals over the past two decades have often reverted to the ‘secondary’ rules found in the International Law Commission’s 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and found in the law of treaties. This article identifies a series of propositions that may be extracted from recent investor–State jurisprudence concerning those secondary rules, with particular attention to application of the rule on non-retroactivity. Except in relatively limited situations, tribunals appear disinclined to find temporal jurisdiction over breaches or disputes that are based on pre-BIT acts. Consequently, this article considers as well recent jurisprudence on whether the host State’s alleged breach has a continuing or composite character, thus overcoming any temporal bar. While it would be excessive to say that the secondary rules in this area have provided the perfect means for addressing temporal issues, they appear to have generated a comprehensible framework within which investor–State tribunals are successfully operating.

中文翻译：

---

与 BIT 争议解决有关的时间问题

摘要

根据双边投资条约 (BIT) 组成的投资者-国家法庭可能被要求确定其属时管辖权基于各种“关键日期”，例如： BIT 生效日期；进行投资的日期；投资者获得必要国籍的日期；涉嫌违规的日期；投资者首次获知所称违约及其损失的日期；和/或争议发生的日期。在面对此类时间问题时，过去 20 年中的法庭往往会求助于国际法委员会 2001 年关于国家对国际不法行为的责任条款和条约法中的“次要”规则。本文确定了一系列可能从最近的投资者-国家判例中提取的关于这些次要规则的命题，特别关注不追溯规则的应用。除非在相对有限的情况下，法庭似乎不愿就基于 BIT 前行为的违约或争议找到临时管辖权。因此，本文还考虑了最近关于东道国所称违反行为是否具有持续性或复合性的判例，从而克服了任何时间限制。虽然说该领域的次要规则为解决时间问题提供了完美的手段是过分的，但它们似乎已经产生了一个易于理解的框架，投资者-国家法庭在该框架内成功运作。本文还考虑了最近关于东道国被指控的违约行为是否具有持续性或复合性的判例，从而克服了任何时间限制。虽然说该领域的次要规则为解决时间问题提供了完美的手段是过分的，但它们似乎已经产生了一个易于理解的框架，投资者-国家法庭在该框架内成功运作。本文还考虑了最近关于东道国被指控的违约行为是否具有持续性或复合性的判例，从而克服了任何时间限制。虽然说该领域的次要规则为解决时间问题提供了完美的手段是过分的，但它们似乎已经产生了一个易于理解的框架，投资者-国家法庭在该框架内成功运作。