一審 |田昕琪 英國布里斯托大學 MA LAW
二審 | 富 揚 北京師範大學 法律碩士
編輯｜周 彤 北京理工大學法學院 LLB
田 悅 華僑大學 本科
責編 I 劉一賢 國際關係學院 本科
What is the Role of the Abuse of Process Doctrine When the Illegitimate Commencement of Investment Arbitration Proceedings is Concerned?
論濫用程式原則於非法啟動投資仲裁的作用
Ksenia Polonskaya, Alexa Hajjar (Carleton University, Department of Law and Legal Studies)
Investment tribunals are well-known to examine the abuse of rights doctrine in various contexts, including illegitimate corporate restructuring (Phillip Morris v Australia, para. 588; Lao Holdings v Laos I, para. 70; Alverley v Romania, para. 380), bad faith conduct (Phoenix v Czech Republic, paras.143-44; WCV World Capital Ventures Cyprus Ltd v Czech Republic, paras. 477-478), and parallel proceedings (Ampal v Egypt, para. 331).
投資仲裁庭常在多種情形下審查“權利濫用原則”，包括非法公司重組（菲利普·莫里斯訴澳大利亞案，第588段；寮國控股訴寮國案，第70段；阿爾弗利訴羅馬尼亞案，第380段）、惡意行為（鳳凰訴捷克共和國案，第143-144段；WCV世界資本風投公司訴捷克共和國案，第477-478段）以及平行程式（安帕爾訴埃及案，第331段）。
（圖片來源於網路）
Most recently, the tribunal in WM Mining v Mongolia[1]faced a question of whether the abuse of process doctrine (a derivative of abuse of rights) applies when the claimants seek to obtain an illegitimate advantage by commencing investment arbitration. This contribution examines the tribunal’s reasoning in light of a broader context of investment disputes.
最近，WM礦業訴蒙古案仲裁庭面臨一個問題：當申請人試圖透過啟動投資仲裁程式以獲取非法優勢時，“濫用程式原則”（權利濫用的衍生原則）是否適用？本文結合投資爭議的廣泛背景，分析該仲裁庭的論證邏輯。
[1]https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw182634.pdf
Background
背景
The foreign investor (and claimant in this dispute) is WM Mining Company LLC, a US-incorporated company. The respondent is the Government of Mongolia. In 2008, the claimant owned a Swiss subsidiary, WMM AG, which bought Ikh Tokhoirol LLC, an owner of mining licenses in Mongolia (Award, para. 51). The Mongolian Government adopted a law that limited mining operations near all rivers (Award, para. 53). This regulatory change negatively impacted the investor’s licenses by reducing their boundaries (Award, paras. 57-58). Such change prompted the claimant to file a notice of dispute in 2013 (Award, para. 126). In 2015, Mongolia reversed its position and restored the boundaries under the licenses (Award, para. 64). Subsequently, given the claimant’s silence, Mongolia was under the impression that the dispute was resolved. Despite Mongolia’s actions, the claimant, however, filed a second notice of dispute in 2021 after not communicating with the Mongolian government for several years (Award, para.185).
外國投資者（即本案申請人）是美國註冊的WM礦業有限責任公司。被申請人為蒙古政府。2008年，申請人透過其瑞士子公司WMM AG收購了蒙古礦業許可證持有者Ikh Tokhoirol LLC（裁決書第51段）。蒙古政府隨後頒佈法律限制河流附近的採礦活動（裁決書第53段），這一監管變化導致申請人持有的許可證範圍被縮減（裁決書第57-58段）。2013年，申請人據此提交爭議通知（裁決書第126段）。2015年，蒙古政府改變了立場，恢復了許可證原範圍（裁決書第64段），隨後又因為申請人的沉默，蒙古認為爭議已解決。然而，在多年未與蒙古政府溝通後，申請人於2021年再次提交爭議通知（裁決書第185段）。
In the meantime, the Swiss Court of Olten-Gösgen ordered the liquidation of WMM AG, the claimant’s Swiss subsidiary, and assigned a liquidator (Award, para. 63). The claimant never notified Mongolia of this matter (Award, para. 128). Shortly after, the claimant entered a number of transactions with different companies to alter the debt priority in the bankruptcy proceedings and secure an undue advantage over other creditors (Award, paras. 129, 133). This fact is important since the tribunal would deem these transactions bad faith “schemes” (Award, para. 133).
與此同時，瑞士奧爾滕-格斯根法院下令清算WMM AG並指定清算人（裁決書第63段）。申請人未向蒙古政府通報此事（裁決書第128段）。隨後，申請人透過一系列交易改變破產程式中的債務優先順序，試圖獲得優於其他債權人的不當優勢（裁決書第129、133段）。這個事實至關重要，因為仲裁庭將會認定這些交易為惡意“策劃”（裁決書第133段）。
In 2020, the liquidator sent a notice of dispute to the Government of Mongolia on behalf of WMM AG, alleging breaches of the Switzerland-Mongolia BIT. In 2021, the claimant also filed a notice of arbitration against the Government of Mongolia under the USA-Mongolia BIT (Award, para. 71). Here, the claims’ timing is crucial. The claimant filed for arbitration when the bankruptcy proceedings were still ongoing, the claimant’s transactions failed to achieve their purpose, and only after the liquidator filed its claim against Mongolia (Award, paras. 130-34). In its 2021 claim, the investor limited the right of Mongolia to reply to 21 days and ignored the six-month waiting period set by the BIT under the pretext that the 2021 notice of arbitration constituted a “renewal” of the 2013 claim (Award, para. 185).
2020年，清算人代表WMM AG向蒙古政府提交爭議通知，指控其違反《瑞士-蒙古雙邊投資條約》（BIT）。2021年，申請人又以《美國-蒙古雙邊投資條約》為依據對蒙古政府提起仲裁（裁決書第71段）。仲裁申請的時機至關重要——申請人在破產程式未終結、其交易目的落空且清算人已對蒙古提出索賠後才提起仲裁（裁決書第130-134段）。此外，申請人以“續延”2013年爭議的通知為由，將蒙古的答辯期限壓縮至21天，無視雙邊投資條約約定的6個月等待期（裁決書第185段）。
（圖片來源於網路）
The Parties’ Positions
雙方立場
The respondent raised an abuse of process objection. The main charge of the respondent against the claimant is that the claimant (1) delayed the commencement of the arbitration process and (2) filed the arbitration claim to gain an illegitimate advantage in the bankruptcy proceedings (Award, para. 99). The delay resulted in several consequences. Specifically, it negatively impacted the respondent’s ability “to present its case” (Award, para. 103). Further, as per Mongolia’s submissions, the claimant attempted to take an unfair advantage of the arbitration process. Specifically, the claim against the respondent was filed without the liquidator’s authorization, an action “harmful” to the WMM AG’s shareholders (Award, para. 105). In other words, the claim was not pursued with the genuine intention of seeking recovery but rather to “unduly interfere” with the bankruptcy proceedings. This approach is “abusive” and runs against the “purpose of international arbitration” (Award, para. 106).
被申請人提出“濫用程式”異議，對申請人的主要指控為：（1）延遲啟動仲裁程式，（2）在破產程式中，透過仲裁獲取不正當優勢（裁決書第99段）。延遲導致蒙古政府難以“充分陳述案情”（裁決書第103段）。此外，根據蒙古政府的陳述，申請人試圖利用仲裁程式謀取不當利益。具體而言，針對被申請人的索賠未經清算人授權，這一行為對WMM AG的股東構成“損害”（裁決書第105段）。換言之，申請人提出索賠並非出於正當追償目的，而是為了“不當干預”破產程式。仲裁庭認為此舉“具有濫用性質”，違背“國際仲裁的宗旨”（裁決書第106段）。
The claimant denies the validity of the respondent’s arguments. With respect to the delay, the claimant notes that it was caused by its efforts to mitigate damages after the respondent restored licenses. The claimant justifies the delays by referring to difficult circumstances, such as the need to search for counsel and funding as well as the COVID-19 pandemic (Award, para. 110). The claimant notes that the application of the abuse of rights doctrine has been narrowly limited only to corporate restructurings and breaches of host state law (Award, para. 111). The claimant argues that its arbitration claim does not impact the rights of creditors or anyone else engaged in the bankruptcy proceedings (Award, para. 115). Notably, it relies on Ampal v Egypt to assert that parallel proceedings are insufficient to establish abuse of process (Award, para. 116). In Ampal, the tribunal acknowledged that an investor abused the treaty system by launching two claims against the same respondent in relation to the same economic interest (Award, para. 330). However, it permitted the claimant to “cure” its abuse by selecting one claim to proceed (Award, para. 331). The tribunal’s permission was based on a lack of bad faith on behalf of the investor (Award, para. 331).
申請人否認被申請人主張的有效性。關於延遲的問題，申請人解釋稱其行為是因蒙古政府恢復許可證後需“減輕損失”所致，並援引尋找代理律師、籌措資金及新冠疫情等困難情形作為延遲的正當理由（裁決書第110段）。申請人主張，“權利濫用原則”的適用應嚴格限於公司重組和違反東道國法律的場景（裁決書第111段），並強調其仲裁請求未影響債權人或破產程式相關方的權利（裁決書第115段）。值得注意的是，申請人援引安帕爾訴埃及案，主張平行訴訟程式[2]不足以構成濫用程式（裁決書第116段）。該案中，仲裁庭承認投資者針對同一被申請人就同一經濟利益提起兩項索賠構成對條約體系的濫用（裁決書第330段），但允許申請人透過選擇一項程式繼續推進以“消除/抵銷”其濫用行為（裁決書第331段）。仲裁庭的許可基於投資者不存在惡意（裁決書第331段）。
[2]平行訴訟程式（parallel proceedings）：相同當事人就同一爭議基於相同事實以及相同目的同時在兩個或兩個以上國家的法院進行訴訟的現象。
（圖片來源於網路）
The Tribunal’s Conclusions
仲裁庭結論
The tribunal ruled that the claims were inadmissible (Award, para. 119) and constituted an abuse of process. The tribunal achieved this conclusion for the following two reasons. First, the claimant ignored the waiting period under the BIT. It presented the 2021 notice of arbitration as a “renewed” attempt to settle the dispute that was initiated (and subsequently abandoned) by the 2013 notice of arbitration. The claimant’s framing of the issue as “renewed” allowed the claimant to justify bypassing the waiting period (Award, para. 182). The tribunal reasoned that the investor’s conduct contradicted the good faith principle (Award, para. 188).
仲裁庭裁定相關索賠不可受理（裁決書第119段）且構成濫用程式。這一結論基於以下兩項理由：第一，申請人無視雙邊投資條約（BIT）的等待期。申請人將2021年仲裁通知描述為對2013年仲裁通知（已啟動但隨後被放棄）的“更新”，以此主張跳過條約規定的等待期（裁決書第182段）。仲裁庭認為，申請人的行為違背了誠信原則（裁決書第188段）。
Second, according to the tribunal, the claimant made “persistent efforts to obtain benefits from the […] licenses” for over 6 years and filed the arbitration claim only after other “schemes” it undertook “failed” (Award, para. 134). The tribunal deemed that the purpose of the claim was “to collect funds and gain undue advantages over other creditors by taking precedence over WMM AG’s Liquidator in a treaty claim against the Respondent” (Award, para. 135). From the tribunal’s perspective, such an exercise of a right to file an arbitration claim contradicted the purpose of international arbitration (Award, para. 194).
第二，申請人長期透過“策劃”謀取不當利益。仲裁庭指出，申請人為從許可證中獲利進行了長達6年的“持續努力”，並在“其他計劃失敗後”才提起仲裁（裁決書第134段）。其索賠目的是“為了透過條約向被申請人索賠以獲得相對WVM AG清算人的優勢，從而募集資金並獲得相對其他債權人不當優勢”（裁決書第135段）。仲裁庭認為，此類行權方式與國際仲裁的宗旨相悖（裁決書第194段）。
Most notably, the claimant’s history of “scheming” played a determinative role in the tribunal’s analysis. In this context, the investor’s claim was “a culmination” in the series of actions to gain an undue advantage over the liquidator and the creditors (Award, paras. 135, 199). For these reasons, the tribunal deemed the claim an abuse of process (Award, paras. 200-01).
尤為關鍵的是，申請人此前的“策劃”行為在仲裁庭分析中具有決定性。其仲裁請求被視為“一系列旨在超越清算人和債權人以獲取不當利益行為的高潮”（裁決書第135、199段）。基於此，仲裁庭認定該索賠構成濫用程式（裁決書第200-201段）。
This approach echoes the reasoning in Orascom v Algeria and Impregilo v Argentina. In Orascom (as the tribunal in WM Mining acknowledges), the tribunal confirmed that “abuse of rights […] prohibits the exercise of a right for purposes other than those for which the right was established” (Award, paras. 193, 200). The tribunal in Orascom addressed the doctrine of abuse of rights in light of the commencement of the proceedings (see section D(4)(d)). When discussing the facts, the tribunal emphasized the investor took advantage of multiple treaties along its vertical corporate chain to launch the arbitration proceedings (Award, para. 545). The tribunal noted that the host states did not sign the investment treaties to permit multiple recoveries concerning the same economic loss (Award, para. 543). Such a use of the treaty system would constitute an abuse of rights because it is contrary to the purpose of investment arbitration.
這一思路與奧斯康訴阿爾及利亞案和英波基洛訴阿根廷案的論證相呼應。在奧斯康案中（如WM礦業案仲裁庭所承認），仲裁庭明確“權利濫用禁止以條約設立目的之外的方式行使權利”（裁決書第193、200段）。該案仲裁庭在分析程式啟動時指出，投資者利用其垂直企業鏈中的多重條約發起仲裁（裁決書第545段），而東道國簽署條約的初衷並非允許對同一經濟損失進行多次追償（裁決書第543段）。此類行為因違背投資仲裁宗旨而構成權利濫用。
In Impregilo v Argentina, Argentina also made an argument that Impregilo delayed arbitration for “speculative purposes”, an action that ultimately constitutes (at least according to the respondent) an abuse of process (Award, para. 59). The tribunal ultimately ruled that the delay was not “unreasonable” given the explanations furnished by the claimant (Award, para. 91). In other words, the tribunal required the investor to justify the delay. Since no speculation was established, the tribunal refused to find abuse of process.
在英波基洛案中，阿根廷主張英波基洛為“投機目的”拖延仲裁程式，構成濫用程式（裁決書第59段）。然而，仲裁庭最終認定延遲“並非不合理”，因申請人提供了充分解釋（裁決書第91段）。換言之，仲裁庭要求投資者對延遲作出合理解釋。因仲裁庭未發現投機證據，所以拒絕認定為濫用程式。
（圖片來源於網路）
The “Nuggets” of the Tribunal’s Reasoning
仲裁庭論證邏輯的亮點
Some aspects of the tribunal’s reasoning in WM Mining deserve scrutiny since they highlight the conceptual development of the doctrine of abuse of process in international investment law.
WM礦業案仲裁庭的若干論證細節值得深入審視，因其揭示了國際投資法中濫用程式原則的學理髮展。
First, the tribunal ruled that abuse of process turns claims inadmissible and does not concern jurisdiction (Award, paras. 100, 119). The tribunal highlighted that this determination is fact-specific (Award, para. 119). This finding aligns with the conclusions of other tribunals (Pugachev v Russia, para. 251; Phillip Morris v Australia, para. 588). The arbitral practice has no consistent approach on whether a finding of abuse of process results in a lack of jurisdiction or admissibility, as the tribunal acknowledged (Award, para. 119). Professor Gaillard explained this lack of consistency by suggesting that the conclusion in each dispute depends on the specific right abused.
首先，仲裁庭明確，濫用程式導致索賠不可受理，而非管轄權問題（裁決書第100、119段），並強調這一結論需基於具體事實（裁決書第119段）。該立場與普加喬夫訴俄羅斯案（第251段）和菲利普·莫里斯訴澳大利亞案（第588段）等先例一致。仲裁庭承認，實踐中對濫用程式應否定管轄權抑或可受理性尚無統一標準（裁決書第119段）。加亞爾（Gaillard）教授指出，這一分歧源於個案中被濫用的具體權利不同[3]。
[3]https://arbitrationday.law.columbia.edu/sites/arbitrationday.law.columbia.edu/files/content/Reading%20Materials/Panel%203/Gaillard%20%20Abuse%20of%20Process%20in%20International%20Arbitration.pdf
Second, the arbitrators stressed that tribunals could apply the abuse of process doctrine to a broader set of circumstances than corporate restructuring (Award, para. 122). The tribunal also acknowledged that there was no fixed “list” of the “situations” that would qualify as abuse of rights or abuse of process (Award, para. 122). It referenced “corporate restructuring” to secure jurisdiction and “multiplication of proceedings,” as well as using the arbitration process inconsistent with the purpose of the treaty as examples of “abusive” conduct. The latter category potentially broadens the application of the doctrine.
第二，仲裁庭強調，濫用程式原則的適用不應侷限於公司重組，而可擴充套件至更廣泛情形（裁決書第122段）。其指出，濫用權利或程式的行為並無固定“清單”，但列舉了“透過公司重組獲取管轄權”“程式濫用”以及“違背條約宗旨利用仲裁”等典型情形（裁決書第122段）。最後一類情形尤其拓寬了該原則的適用範圍。
Third, the tribunal provided some conceptual clarity on the doctrinal place of abuse of process in investment arbitration. Specifically, it explained that the doctrine is a derivative of abuse of rights arising from violations of a good faith principle (Award, para. 98). These observations echo the reasoning in Ampal (para. 328), Caratube v Kazakhstan (para. 376), and Gramercy v Peru (para. 357). They also correspond to the ICJ jurisprudence (paras. 139-150) and the conclusions of the late Hersch Lauterpacht (p. 286).
第三，仲裁庭釐清了濫用程式原則在投資仲裁中的學理根基，尤其指出其本質是誠信原則被違反時衍生的權利濫用（裁決書第98段）。這一觀點與安帕爾案（第328段）、卡拉圖布訴哈薩克案（第376段）、格拉梅西訴秘魯案（第357段）的論證相呼應，亦符合國際法院判例（第139-150段）及已故學者赫施·勞特派特的學術結論（第286頁）。
Finally, WM Mining clearly shows that schemes and machinations undertaken by investors to gain unfair access to or take unfair advantage of investment arbitration will be limited by the tribunals if they contradict the purpose of international arbitration, a conclusion consistent with some previous scholarly findings.
最後，WM礦業案清晰表明，若投資者透過策劃與操縱利用仲裁程式謀取不當準入或優勢，且該行為違背國際仲裁宗旨，仲裁庭將予以限制。這一結論與既有學術研究的核心觀點一致，為濫用程式原則的適用提供了更具彈性的框架。
（圖片來源於網路）
原文發表日期：2025年2月28日
原文連結：https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2025/02/28/what-is-the-role-of-the-abuse-of-process-doctrine-when-the-illegitimate-commencement-of-investment-arbitration-proceedings-is-concerned/