Study On The Expansion Of ICSID Tribunal Jurisdiction

Economic integration is taking place worldwide,international capital flows are becoming more frequent,and cooperation between countries is becoming more and more close.However,there are still many risk factors in existence,such as some unpredictable risks from political and economic aspects.Both of them have hidden dangers for cooperation between overseas investors and the host country,which is very likely to cause conflicts between the two.At present,the way in which the state responds to international investment contradictions is mainly through the International Center(ICSID),and gradually develops into a more mainstream means of solving such problems.ICSID jurisdiction is exclusive and is regulated in the Washington Convention,as detailed in Articles 25-27 of the Convention.In actual practice,arbitration cases are the mainstay,and most of the cases are carried out around the central jurisdiction.For ICSID,the jurisdiction of application needs to satisfy three points: first,the parties to the dispute are qualified;second,the nature of the dispute is appropriate,that is,the legal dispute caused by the investment;third,the parties to the dispute agree in writing.In addition,although there are many provisions in the Convention that limit the scope of management of the International Investment Dispute Resolution Center,in practice,it is more inclined to adopt a broad interpretation.It is clearly stated in international law that ICSID needs to be able to use jurisdiction only if it is“written recognized”by a sovereign state.Therefore,a morecautious and in-depth examination and discussion of the current trend of broadening jurisdiction is needed.The research of this article uses a variety of research methods,such as literature research,comparative analysis,case studies,and inductive deduction,etc.,to analyze some ways to broaden the scope of jurisdiction often used in ICSID rulings,to explore the reasons behind And combined with the actual situation in China to summarize the corresponding coping strategies.This paper discusses some classic cases of ICSID arbitration,and compares them.It analyzes the discussion and arbitration basis of ICSID in detail,and then gives some views on some practices.ICSID uses the following methods to broaden jurisdiction when making decisions: 1 The meaning of “ investment ” is solved in a broader way.The typical representative case is the Fedax and Venezuelan arbitration events.The concept of ICSID is “if the business process Sufficient to constitute an "investment",so a transaction in the process should also belong to'investment disputes';2 to broaden the scope of application of jurisdiction by agreeing to the terms of arbitration: one is the expansion of the scope of "agree" itself,for example Use "analog" means to find the link between investment agreements,and link the terms involved in the case with the agreement on the ICSID dispute settlement clause to expand the scope of "agree",just like SOABI v.In the Senegal incident,the arbitration in this case was adopted in such a way that the meaning of the vocabulary in the regulations was broadened and used to achieve the purpose of broadening the jurisdiction;the second was the expansion of the scope of the “consent” subject,for example,The “indirect foreign control” criterion,that is,when judging a person's nationality,also considers the country of the indirect controller,and if necessary,allows someone to appear as a “nationality of the State party”,in the SOABI incident.This method has been applied.3 Extend the interpretation of the relevant provisions in the BIT.The application methods are as follows:First,the scope of application of jurisdiction is expanded through the MFN regulations.That is to say,when the third-party treaty is moreprofitable,the provisions in the MFN can be used to enable the parties to receive the treatment.To gain this benefit,refer to the Maffezini and Spanish disputes.Second,take the fork regulation.Broaden the scope of application of jurisdiction.When there is a dispute between the investor and the host country,the investor can choose the place of the complaint,choose the international ruling,or choose to carry out the domestic remedy.However,it should be noted that only one of the two can be selected,if the investor After appealing to the host domestic court,and applying for international arbitration,ICSID will determine that the dispute handled by the host domestic court is not the same as the international arbitration,so that the investor cannot pass the fork regulation.Representative cases include CMS Gas Transmission Company v.Argentina,etc.Third,the umbrella regulations are used to broaden the scope of application of jurisdiction.International investment activities The Middle East countries will also make corresponding commitments when accepting investment.The so-called umbrella regulations are precisely to ensure that they can abide by the terms of the commitment.For example,in the BIT,it is written: “ Parties should Performing an obligation to assume any liability for the particular investment of the investor in its territory,as ICSID in the SGS v.Philippines incident interprets this provision as “ all disputes are protected by this BIT clause ”,so that The dispute is included in the jurisdiction of ICSID.After analyzing some of the means of broadening the jurisdiction that are often used in the ICSID ruling,this paper considers the perspective of better mitigating international investment disputes.It can be seen from the analysis that there are two major trends in investment arbitration in the world today: First,with the development of the world economy and the increasing frequency of investment,disputes have become more frequent.More and more arbitration cases have begun to appear in international economic and trade activities.Second,more and more Compared with the dispute cases,the traditional ISDS ruling system also reveals many leaks and drawbacks that cannot be adapted.Therefore,it has always been criticized by the economic circles and other related fields.Reform and renewal are imperative.Based on this,this paper believes that it is necessary to improve this state from two aspects: First,for the existing international dispute settlement mechanism,we must constantly improve it with the development perspective,make it more scientific and more applicable,instead of To completely abandon it,we should advocate reform and adjustment of rules to make the dispute settlement mechanism more complete.Second,we should improve the relevant treaties on China and external international investment,and appropriately supplement relevant rules such as the MFN regulations.