譯者 | 林泓帆 清華大學
一審 | 鄧雅元 復旦大學
二審 | peipei 布里斯托大學
編輯 | 田 悅 華僑大學
鄭梓萱 澳門科技大學
責編 | 林靖珊 中國政法大學
Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration?
在投資仲裁中被撤銷的裁決能否作為法律依據？
By Albert Jan van den Berg
艾伯特·楊·範登伯格
Abstract
摘要
Arbitration lawyers have been discussing enforcement of annulled awards for some 25 years. Recently, another discussion regarding annulled awards is gaining traction: can an investment arbitrator rely on an annulled award? More specifically, does it constitute legal authority? The author submits that, in investment arbitration, an arbitral award, annulled by a national court in the UNCITRAL Rules context or by an ad hoc committee in the ICSID context, does not constitute legal authority, nor can it give guidance on the content of the applicable law in another manner.
25年來，仲裁律師界一直在討論被撤銷裁決的執行問題。最近，另一場有關被撤銷的裁決的討論正在逐漸升溫：投資仲裁員能否依據被撤銷的裁決作出裁決？更確切地說，被撤銷的裁決能否構成法律依據？筆者認為，在投資仲裁中，一項被國內法院在《聯合國國際貿易法委員會規則》（下稱“UNCITRAL規則”）框架下撤銷的仲裁裁決，或者在國際投資爭端解決中心（下稱“ICSID”）框架下被特設委員會撤銷的仲裁裁決，不構成法律依據，也不能以其他方式對適用法律的內容提供指引。
Arbitration lawyers have been discussing enforcement of annulled awards for some 25 years. Recently, another discussion regarding annulled awards is gaining traction: can an investment arbitrator rely on an annulled award? That question must be seen in the context of the broader ISDS question: ‘why wrong decisions don’t die’.
25年來，仲裁律師界一直在討論被撤銷裁決的執行問題。最近，另一場有關被撤銷裁決的討論正在逐漸升溫：投資仲裁員能否依據被撤銷的裁決作出裁決？為此，必須在一個更為寬泛的ISDS（投資者—國家爭端解決）課題下來審視這一問題，即 “為什麼錯誤的裁決不會消亡 ”。
（圖片源於網路）
Reliance on an annulled investment award may concern two types of issues: factual findings and legal considerations.In this note, I will not address the first type. The factual findings in an annulled award are usually invoked in connected cases between the same or related parties. They involve matters of res judicata and, possibly, estoppel.
依靠被撤銷的投資裁決可能涉及兩類議題：事實認定和法律考量。第一類議題不是本文探討的物件。被撤銷裁決的事實認定通常在相同或相關當事方之間的關聯案件中被援引。它們涉及既判力問題，還可能涉及禁反言問題。
The second type of issue is more problematic. At its core is the question of the legal status of an annulled investment award. If it is rendered in the context of an investment arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, the award has been annulled by a national court (of the place of arbitration). In that country the annulled award legally no longer exists. Outside the country where the award was made, enforcement courts have to refuse enforcement under the New York Convention.
相較而言，第二類議題更為複雜。其核心爭議點在於被撤銷投資裁決的法律地位如何。如果該裁決是依據UNCITRAL規則進行的投資仲裁作出的，且被仲裁地的國內法院撤銷，那麼在該國，被撤銷裁決在法律上已經消亡。在仲裁地國以外的其他國家，執行法院必須依據《紐約公約》拒絕予以執行。但這種做法是存在爭議的。
（圖片源於網路）
Such non-enforcement is controversial as certain courts are of the view that they have a discretionary power to enforce an award under the Convention notwithstanding annulment in the country where it was made. On the other hand, if the investment award is rendered in the context of the ICSID Convention, it is not questioned that an award annulled in its entirety by an ad hoc committee legally no longer exists and can no longer be enforced.
某些法院認為，儘管裁決在仲裁地國被撤銷，但是依據《紐約公約》，它們仍有執行裁決的自由裁量權。另一方面，如果投資裁決是依據《解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約》（下稱“ICSID 公約”）作出的，那麼毫無疑問，被特設委員會完全撤銷的裁決在法律上將不再繼續存續，也不能再被執行。
Arbitrators (and parties) frequently refer to investment awards that have not been annulled. It is generally accepted that prior investment awards do not constitute binding precedent. Whether they constitute persuasive precedent is subject to debate. One school of thought believes investment arbitrators should pay due attention to earlier decisions of international tribunals and that, specifically, subject to compelling contrary grounds, they have a duty to adopt solutions established in a series of consistent cases (jurisprudence constante).
仲裁員（和當事人）經常引用尚未被撤銷的投資仲裁裁決。人們普遍認同，先前的投資裁決對往後的裁決不具有約束力。至於它們是否構成有說服力的先例，還有待商榷。一派學說認為，投資仲裁員應當重視國際法庭先前的裁決。具體而言，除非仲裁員有強有力的反對說理，否則他們有義務採用在一系列一致案件中確定下來的解決方案（jurisprudence constante，一般譯為“恆常判理”）。
（圖片源於網路）
This school also believes that investment arbitrators have a duty to contribute to the harmonious development of investment law. Another school of thought is of the view that each case stands on its own and has its own legal and factual issues. This school does not believe in a duty to contribute to the development of investment law as arbitrators are chosen by parties for resolving the dispute between them only.
該學派還認為，投資仲裁員有義務為投資法的和諧發展作出貢獻。另一派學說則認為，每個案件都是獨立的，都有其自身的法律依據和事實問題。這一派不認為仲裁員有促進投資法發展的義務，因為各方當事人選擇仲裁員只是為了解決他們之間的糾紛。
For the first school of thought, prior arbitral awards are persuasive and even authoritative precedent. For the second school of thought, these awards are at best inspirational. Even so, when it comes to annulled investment awards, both schools will be confronted with the question whether they can attribute any value to such awards, be it precedential or inspirational. In the arbitration context, that question becomes the question whether annulled awards constitute legal authority and the related question of how the content of applicable law is to be ascertained.
對第一個學派而言，先前的仲裁裁決是具有說服力的，甚至權威性的先例。對第二個學派而言，這些裁決充其量只有啟示作用。即便如此，當涉及到被撤銷投資裁決時，兩派都會面臨這樣一個問題：無論是作為先例，還是作為啟示，此類裁決能否被賦予任何價值？在仲裁的語境下，這個問題變成了被撤銷裁決是否構成法律依據，以及與此相關的，如何確定適用法律的內容。
（圖片源於網路）
Legal authority consists primarily of statutes, case law and doctrinal writings. In the case of investment arbitration, legal authority includes arbitral awards rendered by other investment tribunals. Parties refer to arbitral awards in support of their contentions regarding legal issues. Arbitrators refer to them in support of their findings regarding legal issues.
法律依據主要包括成文法、判例法和法理著作。在投資仲裁中，法律依據包括其他投資仲裁庭作出的仲裁裁決。在法律問題上，當事人引用仲裁裁決來支援其關於法律爭議的請求，仲裁員則引用仲裁裁決來支援其裁決。
With respect to the related question, there is a divide as to how the content of applicable law is to be ascertained in investment arbitration. One group adheres to the rule that the content of the applicable law is to be proven by a party. Another group follows the rule that the content of the applicable law is to be determined by investment arbitrators upon submission of the parties.
與之相關的問題是，在投資仲裁中如何確定法律適用。對此，學界存在分歧。一派堅持認為適用法律的內容由當事人舉證確定；另一派則遵循這樣一種規則，即適用法律的內容應由投資仲裁員根據當事人提交的材料確定。
（圖片源於網路）
Some believe that investment arbitrators may determine the content of the applicable law even without submission by the parties on the basis of the maxim iura novit curia (the court knows the law).That maxim exists in a number of national legal systems and is also applied by the International Court of Justice. It is controversial whether investment arbitrators are also allowed to apply this maxim. If they do so, it is advisable that they submit to the parties for their comment the new thoughts on the applicable law. Otherwise, it can result in a surprise award that may be in jeopardy for violation of due process.
部分觀點認為，即使當事人沒有提交法律意見，投資仲裁員也可以根據法官知法原則（iura novit curia）來確定適用法律的內容。這一原則存在於許多國家的法律體系中，也被國際法院所採用。至於投資仲裁員是否也可以援用這一原則，目前尚存在爭議。如果仲裁員可以這樣做，那麼建議向當事人提交關於適用法律的新想法，並徵求他們的意見。否則，這會導致意外的裁決，甚至可能因違反正當程式而岌岌可危。
Against the foregoing background, the reference to annulled awards raises a number of questions that I will review below.
基於上述背景，筆者將在下文對被撤銷裁決引發的一系列問題進行評論。
（圖片源於網路）
A first question is whether the said concept of enforcement of annulled awards under the New York Convention is relevant to the question of whether investment arbitrators may rely on an annulled award. The answer to this question must be negative. The concept of enforcement of an annulled award requires a specific legal basis. In the context of the New York Convention, it is an interpretation of article V(1) (‘may’), and possibly VII(1) (more-favourable-right provision), of the Convention that is said to offer such legal basis. In the context of the ICSID Convention, there is no such legal basis. For that reason, it has never even been argued that an award annulled by the ICSID ad hoc Committee can nonetheless be enforced.
第一個問題是，《紐約公約》中執行被撤銷裁決的概念與投資仲裁員能否依據被撤銷裁決這一問題是否相關。答案必須是否定的。執行被撤銷裁決需要特定的法律依據。據稱，對《紐約公約》第五條第（1）款（“可能”），可能還有第七條第（1）款（更優惠權利條款）的解釋提供了這樣的法律依據。在ICSID 公約當中則沒有這樣的法律依據。因此，從未有人提出，被ICSID特設委員會撤銷的裁決仍然可以執行。
（圖片源於網路）
A second question is whether an annulled award constitutes legal authority at all. If the award has not been annulled, it would fall in the category of case law. An annulled award, on the other hand, does not fit into any of the categories (statutes, case law and doctrinal writing) of the concept of legal authority.
第二個問題是，被撤銷裁決是否構成法律依據。如果裁決尚未被撤銷，則其屬於判例法範疇。與之相反，被撤銷裁決不屬於任何一類法律依據（成文法、判例法和學理著作）。
Once an award has been annulled, can the document be considered as transformed into a doctrinal writing? I do not believe in such a ‘transformation’. The nature of an arbitral award is fundamentally different from that of a doctrinal writing. An award is the result of an adjudicatory process and is written as the outcome of a deliberative procedure amongst the arbitrators in light of the rivalling positions of the parties. A doctrinal writing does not compare with such a process and result.
裁決一旦被撤銷，是否可以認為該檔案已經轉化為學理著作？筆者不認為存在這樣的“轉化”。仲裁裁決的性質與學理著作有著本質區別。裁決是裁決過程的結果，是仲裁員審議各方當事人對立立場後得出的書面成果。學理著作的創作與這樣的過程和結果顯著不同。
（圖片源於網路）
For those reasons too, an annulled investment award would not qualify as ‘the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of various nations’, which is a subsidiary means for determination of rules of law under article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute. Moreover, it is open to debate whether all investment arbitrators can be considered ‘the most highly qualified publicists’.
《國際法院規約》第38條第1款（卯）項規定，“各國權威最高之公法學家學說”是確定法律規則的輔助手段。但同樣出於前述原因，被撤銷的投資裁決不足以成為“權威學說”。此外，是否所有投資仲裁員都可以被視為“最權威的公法學家”，這一點也仍有待商榷。
A third question is whether investment arbitrators may rely on portions of an annulled award that were not the cause of its annulment. Two situations need to be distinguished:
第三個問題是，投資仲裁員是否可以援引被撤銷裁決中並非導致其撤銷的部分。這需要區分兩種情況：
1
The award has been annulled in part by an ad hoc committee (ICSID) or a national court (UNCITRAL). In this case, the part that has not been annulled can be relied upon as legal authority or otherwise.
仲裁裁決已被特設委員會（針對ICSID所作裁決）或國內法院（針對UNCITRAL所作裁決）部分地撤銷。在這種情況下，未被撤銷的部分可以被用作法律依據或其他依據。
2
The award has been annulled in its entirety, but the annulment ground concerns a discrete part of the award. This is the more problematic case.
裁決全部被撤銷，但撤銷理由僅涉及裁決的個別部分。這種情況比較麻煩。
（圖片源於網路）
An example is an award that has been annulled for lack of a valid arbitration agreement. Can an investment arbitrator still rely on the portions in the annulled award that concern legal matters, such as interpreting the notion of fair and equitable treatment? If the award was annulled in its entirety (which is usually the case if the annulment occurred for lack of a valid arbitration agreement), it is difficult to suggest that any portion of the award can constitute legal authority. As mentioned, it does not fit into any category of the notion of legal authority (statutes, case law and doctrinal writing).
例如，一項裁決因缺乏有效的仲裁協議而被撤銷。投資仲裁員能否仍援引撤銷裁決中涉及法律問題的部分，例如對公平公正待遇概念的解釋？如果裁決被全部撤銷（通常來說是因缺乏有效的仲裁協議而被撤銷），則很難說裁決的任何部分可以構成法律依據。如前所述，它不屬於法律依據概念下的任何一類（成文法、判例法和學理著作）。
（圖片源於網路）
Irrespective of the status of legal authority, reliance on other portions of annulled award is a difficult and dangerous exercise. It is difficult because, as mentioned, an award that has been annulled in its entirety cannot be considered a doctrinal writing. It is the result of a deliberative process and not a joint academic writing effort. It is written with the purpose of constituting an arbitral award and not a legal treatise or law review article. It is also dangerous because it would be based on the speculative assumption that the other portions of the award would in and of themselves not have led to annulment.
無論法律依據的地位如何，依賴於被撤銷裁決的其他部分都是一項困難且危險的行為。之所以困難，是因為如前所述，被全部撤銷的裁決不能被視為學理著作。它是審議過程的結果，而非共同合作的學術成果。撰寫它的目的是構成仲裁裁決，而非法學論文或法律評論文章。之所以危險，是因為它基於這樣一種推測性假設，即裁決的其他部分本身不會導致裁決被撤銷。
（圖片源於網路）
For example, a court or ad hoc committee may annul an award in its entirety for lack of a valid arbitration agreement, without addressing the other grounds for annulment. If those other grounds include the failure of the tribunal to seek the opinion from a tax authority as mandatorily required by the relevant treaty, can a subsequent tribunal rely on the portion of the annulled award that held that resort to the authority would have been futile? It is particularly dangerous because ‘The inefficacy of existing corrective mechanisms is problematic as wrong cases don’t die and future interpreters repeat past mistakes.’
例如，國內法院或特設委員會可能單以缺乏有效仲裁協議為由完全撤銷裁決,而不考慮其他可能導致撤銷的理由。如果其他理由包括仲裁庭未能按照相關條約的強制性要求徵求稅務機關的意見，那麼撤銷裁決中裁定訴諸稅務機關是無用的部分，後續仲裁庭是否可以援引？這尤其危險，因為“現有糾正機制的無效性是個問題，錯誤的案件不會消失，未來的解釋者會重複過去的錯誤”。
（圖片源於網路）
A fourth question concerns the said group that adheres to the rule that the content of the applicable law is to be proven by a party. As a matter of evidence, is the annulled award inadmissible evidence or does it go to weighing the evidence? Investment arbitrators who view an annulled award as legally non-existent will probably declare an annulled award inadmissible evidence. Those who have a more generous view of an annulled award may consider it as going to evidentiary weight.
第四個問題涉及前文提到過的一個學派，該學派堅持適用法律的內容必須由當事人證明。從證據角度來看，被撤銷裁決是否應當作為證據被採納？那些認為被撤銷裁決在法律上已經消亡的投資仲裁員可能會宣稱被撤銷裁決不得作為證據。而對被撤銷裁決持更寬容態度的仲裁員可能會認可其證據力度。
A fifth question concerns the case where investment arbitrators have relied on an arbitral award as persuasive or authoritative precedent and where, after issuance of the award, the award relied upon is annulled.Could it be argued that that the arbitrators have failed to state reasons? National courts and ad hoc ICSID committees will not lightly accept that there is a failure to state reasons. However, if the reliance goes to the core of the reasoning, the attitude may be different.
第五個問題涉及的情形是，投資仲裁員引用某仲裁裁決作為具有說服力或權威性的先例，但在裁決作出後，其引用的裁決被撤銷。可以據此說仲裁員沒有陳述理由嗎？國內法院和ICSID特設委員會不會輕易這一說法。但是，如果仲裁員引用的部分涉及到說理的核心，那麼態度可能會有所不同。
（圖片源於網路）
A sixth question is whether investment arbitrators may refer to an annulled award on the basis of the said doctrine of iura novit curia. Assuming that the doctrine applies in investment arbitration, which, as noted, is controversial, it is difficult to see how the doctrine of iura novit curia can be of any help in resolving the question whether investment arbitrators may rely on an annulled award. The doctrine concerns ‘iura’, which is law. An annulled award does not form part of ‘law’ nor is it a source of law.
第六個問題是，投資仲裁員是否可以根據前述的法官知法原則（iura novit curia）來引用被撤銷裁決。即使假設該原則適用於投資仲裁（但如前文所述，這是有爭議的），也很難看出法官知法原則（iura novit curia）如何有助於解決投資仲裁員是否可以引用已撤銷裁決的問題。該原則涉及“iura”，即法。被撤銷裁決既不構成“法”的一部分，也不是法律的淵源。
（圖片源於網路）
A seventh question is whether an annulled award can give guidance to investment arbitrators in another manner than as legal authority. Can it pertain to material sources which may assist in elucidating the content of applicable law? I do not think so. It is difficult to see how an award annulled in its entirety is legally capable of elucidating the content of applicable law. This kind of free-for-all approach strays from the legal analysis that is required to determine the content of the applicable law.
第七個問題是，被撤銷裁決能否以法律依據以外的其他形式為投資仲裁員提供指導。它是否屬於有助於闡明適用法律內容的重要來源？筆者認為不是。很難看出一項被完全撤銷的裁決如何能在法律上具有闡明適用法律的內容的能力。這種自由裁量方式偏離了確定適用法律內容所需的法律分析。
（圖片源於網路）
In conclusion, I submit that, in investment arbitration, an arbitral award, annulled by a national court in the UNCITRAL Rules context or by an ad hoc committee in the ICSID context, does not constitute legal authority, nor can it give guidance on the content of the applicable law in another manner. Investment arbitration requires legal certainty and predictability. Reference to annulled awards does not serve that purpose.
總而言之，筆者認為，在投資仲裁中，UNCITRAL規則框架下的國家法院或ICSID公約框架下的特設委員會撤銷的仲裁裁決並不構成法律依據，也不能以其他形式對適用法律的內容提供指導。投資仲裁需要法律的確定性和可預見性。援引被撤銷裁決並不能達到這一目的。