Bibliographie sélective OHADA

国际投资仲裁发轫于国际商事仲裁，但二者之间存在不小的差异，因此对国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查应区别于对商事仲裁裁决的司法审查。国际投资仲裁裁决的司法审查宜遵循全面审查原则，法院在对条约进行解释时宜力求探索双方当事人缔约时原意。当前我国国内城市被选为仲裁地竞争力不足，国内仲裁机构和仲裁员缺乏参与国际投资仲裁实践经验，在签订部分对外投资协定时，未明确规定透明度条款，立法上我国对临时仲裁的态度不明，亦未明确规定仲裁裁决国籍判断标准等，上述问题导致我国国内法院无权或无法有效对国际投资仲裁裁决进行司法审查，不利于提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的话语权，就此本文提出一些可能的解决方案，以期完善我国对投资仲裁裁决的司法审查制度，提升我国在国际投资仲裁领域的地位。 International investment arbitration originated from international commercial arbitration, but there are significant differences between the two. Therefore, judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should be distinguished from that of commercial arbitration awards. Judicial review of international investment arbitration awards should adhere to the principle of comprehensive review, and courts should strive to uncover the original intent of the contracting parties when interpreting treaties. Currently, cities in China lack competitiveness as venues for arbitration. Domestic arbitration institutions and arbitrators have limited experience in international investment arbitration practice. Some foreign investment agreements signed by China do not explicitly stipulate transparency clauses. Additionally, China’s legislative stance on ad hoc arbitration is unclear, and the criteria for determining the nationality of arbitration awards are not explicitly defined. These issues result in domestic courts either lacking jurisdiction or being unable to effectively conduct judicial review of international investment arbitration awards, which undermines China’s discourse power in the field of international investment arbitration. This paper proposes several possible solutions to address these challenges, aiming to improve China’s judicial review system for investment arbitration on awards and enhance the country’s standing in the field of international investment arbitration.

法庭之友源于英美法系的国内诉讼制度，其在国际投资仲裁中的诞生并非制度的精心设计，而是实践先行，是国际投资仲裁对于透明度和民主性批评的回应。因此，法庭之友制度被赋予了提高国际投资仲裁透明度和加强民主参与，甚至是全球治理的价值期待。通过分析不同仲裁庭的实践，法庭之友制度的真正价值，仍然在于辅助仲裁庭解决投资争端，相关规则构建也应围绕这一根本目的展开。国际投资仲裁也应回归其宗旨，通过解决投资争端，同时对舆论有所回应，从而获得公众对其合法性的认同。 Amicus curiae originated from the domestic litigation system of the common law system. The birth of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration was not an elaborate design of the system, but a practice first, a response to criticism of transparency and democracy in international investment arbitration. Thus, the amicus curiae system has been given the value ex-pectation of enhancing transparency and strengthening democratic participation in international investment arbitration, and even global governance. By analyzing the practices of different arbitral tribunals, the real value of the amicus curiae system still lies in assisting arbitral tribunals to re-solve investment disputes, and the relevant rules should be constructed around this fundamental purpose. International investment arbitration should also return to its purpose of gaining public recognition of its legitimacy by resolving investment disputes and responding to public opinion at the same time.

投资者滥诉是一种复杂的法律现象，国际投资仲裁实践中仲裁庭法律解释权规制的缺失，东道国救济地位的弱化，第三方资助的推波助澜等因素是滥诉风险的重要诱因。双边投资条约的概括性、不确定性导致争端双方仲裁合意的缺失，投资者可以随时主动提起仲裁，而东道国只能被动应诉，投资仲裁的主动权始终掌握在投资者的手里。滥诉风险的防范是一项系统工程。对仲裁庭的法律解释权进行必要的规制是完善ICSID仲裁机制的首要任务，建立对投资者的仲裁请求的先行审查制度有利于滤去明显缺乏法律依据的诉求，增强国际投资仲裁的透明度是督促投资者谨慎提起仲裁的重中之重，对规制滥诉具有重要的积极意义。 Investors abuse is a complex legal phenomenon. The lack of legal interpretation power of arbitration tribunals in the international investment arbitration practice, the weakening of the relief status of the host country, and the influencing factors of third-party funding are important incentives for the abuse of risk. The generality and uncertainty of the bilateral investment treaty lead to the lack of agreement between the parties to the dispute. The investor can initiate arbitration at any time. The host country can only respond passively. The initiative to invest in arbitration is always in the hands of investors. The prevention of abuse of risk is a systematic project. The necessary regulation of the arbitral tribunal’s legal interpretation pow-er is the primary task of perfecting the ICSID arbitration mechanism. Establishing a pre-examination system for investors’ arbitration requests is conducive to filtering out claims that are obviously lacking in legal basis, and enhancing the transparency of international investment arbitration is of great positive significance to the regulation of abuses.