Studies on the Transparency in International Trade and International Investment Dispute Settlement

国际贸易透明度与国际投资争端解决研究

• 批准号: 20330008
• 负责人: NAKAGAWA Junji
• 金额: $ 3.16万
• 依托单位: The University of Tokyo
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
• 财政年份: 2008
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 2008 至 2010
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-20330008/
• 关键词: WTO紛争解決手続; 投資紛争仲裁; 透明性; 国際裁判制度; 法廷の友文書(amicus curie brief); 国際経済法; WTO紛争解決

This research project aimed at elucidating the possibility of enhancing transparency in international trade and investment dispute settlement through an international joint research of scholars of international economic law and NGO leaders by (i) analyzing the theoretical issues surrounding transparency in these dispute settlement procedures, and (ii) examining various policy proposals for enhancing transparency in these disputes. In 2008 and 2009, the research team held two panels in academic gatherings (Inaugural Conference of the Society of International Economic Law (July 2008, Geneva University) and the Asian Society of International Law 2nd Conference (August 2009, University of Tokyo)), and each member of the team made presentations on his/her research topic.In 2010, each member engaged him-/herself in writing final paper on his/her research topic, after discussing each other's presentations. At the time of this report, all members except Justice Feliciano have submitted his/her … More papers. Upon receiving Justice Feliciano's paper, the project leader will co-author an introduction with Mr.Daniel Magraw, and will compile all the papers in an edited book titled Transparency in International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement, to be published from Cambridge University Press (CUP). The project leader has already contacted with the CUP, and has received a positive response toward publication from the latter.The details of the research result will be contained in the above book. Following are the outline of the research result :(1) Transparency in WTO dispute settlement and investment arbitration may be evaluated in light of (i) whether the dispute procedure is open to the public, and (ii) whether and to what extent the relevant documents (disputing parties' submissions and final decisions of the adjudicating bodies (reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body and arbitral awards) are publicly available.(2) These dispute procedures are less transparent than domestic court procedures and international adjudication (e.g., International Court of Justice) bur are more transparent than international commercial arbitration. This may be explained by (i) the character of the disputing parties (WTO member governments and host states and foreign investors), (ii) the characteristics of the subject matter of the disputes (both deal with the legality of domestic regulation but they indirectly touch on the interests of private firms), and (iii) both allows for the possibility of negotiating deals between the parties outside of the procedure.(3) On the other hand, in both procedures, the legality of domestic public policy are frequently at issue, which raises the concern of general public of the disputing states and thus an increasing demand for more transparency.(4) It is, therefore, necessary to strike a delicate balance between the specific characteristics of these dispute settlement process (see (2) above) and the justifiable demand for more transparency by the general public (see (3) above), and we hereby suggest that each dispute settlement process enhance transparency, taking into consideration (i) the characteristics of the issues and (ii) the characteristics of the disputing parties, and (iii) the need to protect business confidentiality of the private parties involved in the dispute. One member, however, asserts that there is no need to enhance more transparency in WTO dispute settlement process, because some dispute cases might be better solved through domestic court procedure of importing countries, where more transparency is secured. Less

本研究项目旨在通过国际经济法学者和非政府组织领导人的国际联合研究，阐明提高国际贸易和投资争端解决透明度的可能性，方法是：(i)分析围绕这些争端解决程序透明度的理论问题，以及（ii）审查提高这些争端透明度的各种政策建议。在2008年和2009年，研究小组分别在国际经济法学会成立大会（2008年7月，日内瓦大学）和亚洲国际法学会第二届会议（2009年8月，东京大学）的学术会议上举办了两场专题讨论，小组成员分别就各自的研究课题发表了演讲。在2010年，每个成员在讨论了彼此的陈述后，就自己的研究课题撰写了期末论文。在撰写本报告时，除费利西亚诺法官外，所有成员都提交了他/她的……更多文件。在收到Feliciano法官的论文后，项目负责人将与daniel Magraw先生共同撰写一篇介绍，并将所有论文编辑成一本名为《国际贸易和投资争端解决的透明度》的书，该书将由剑桥大学出版社（CUP）出版。项目负责人已经联系了CUP，并得到了后者对出版的积极回应。详细的研究结果将包含在上面的书。以下是研究结果的概要：(1)WTO争端解决和投资仲裁的透明度可根据(i)争端程序是否向公众开放，以及（ii）相关文件(争端各方的提交和裁决机构的最终决定（专家组和上诉机构的报告和仲裁裁决）是否以及在多大程度上可公开获得来评估。(2)这些争端程序不如国内法院程序和国际裁决（如国际法院）透明，但比国际商事仲裁更透明。这可以解释为：(i)争端各方（WTO成员国政府和东道国以及外国投资者）的性质，（ii）争端的主题事项的特征（两者都涉及国内监管的合法性，但它们间接触及私营公司的利益），以及（iii）两者都允许当事方之间在程序之外谈判达成协议的可能性。(3)另一方面，在这两个程序中，国内公共政策的合法性经常受到争议，这引起了争端国公众的关注，从而增加了对透明度的要求。(4)因此，有必要在这些争端解决程序的具体特点（见上文(2)）和公众对提高透明度的合理要求（见上文(3)）之间取得微妙的平衡，我们在此建议，每个争端解决程序都应提高透明度，同时考虑到(i)问题的特点和（ii）争端各方的特点。（三）需要保护争议当事人的商业机密。然而，一名成员认为，没有必要提高世贸组织争端解决程序的透明度，因为一些争端案件可以通过进口国的国内法院程序更好地解决，这样可以确保更多的透明度。少

项目成果

Transparency in International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement

国际贸易和投资争端解决的透明度

• 发表时间: 2010
• 作者: Junji Nakagawa;ed.
• 通讯作者: ed.

Transparency in International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement, Cambridge forthcoming

国际贸易和投资争端解决的透明度，剑桥即将出版

• 作者: Junji Nakagawa;ed.;高木博志;永田成文(分担執筆);Junji Nakagawa ed.
• 通讯作者: Junji Nakagawa ed.

Transparency in International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement : Issues and Challenges

国际贸易和投资争端解决的透明度：问题与挑战

• 发表时间: 2008
• 作者: サトウタツヤ;厳島行雄;原聰;岩村正彦;佐藤猛;青木隆浩;佐藤真久・中山修一(分担);指宿信;Junji Nakagawa;才津祐美子;佐藤真久(分担);藤田政博;中山修一(編著);田中雅一;中山修一(編著);Junji Nakagawa
• 通讯作者: Junji Nakagawa

Transparency in International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement : An Introduction

国际贸易和投资争端解决的透明度：简介

• 发表时间: 2009
• 作者: 高木博志;西村安博;市橋克哉;菊地暁;佐藤真久・吉川まみ(分担);藤田政博;西村安博;樹神成;田部俊充(分担);俵木悟;西村安博;藤田政博;白藤博行;前田俊二(分担);青木隆浩;才津祐美子;西村安博;志村喬(分担);西村安博;堀田秀吾;樹神成;若曽根健治(研究協力者);藤田政博;岡村忠生;室井康成;Junji Nakagawa
• 通讯作者: Junji Nakagawa

Internal Transparency of Investment Awards

投资奖励的内部透明度

• 发表时间: 2009
• 作者: 高木博志;西村安博;市橋克哉;菊地暁;佐藤真久・吉川まみ(分担);藤田政博;西村安博;樹神成;田部俊充(分担);俵木悟;西村安博;藤田政博;白藤博行;前田俊二(分担);青木隆浩;才津祐美子;西村安博;志村喬(分担);西村安博;堀田秀吾;樹神成;若曽根健治(研究協力者);藤田政博;岡村忠生;室井康成;Junji Nakagawa;渡辺 徹也;室井康成;渕野貴生;Federico Ortino
• 通讯作者: Federico Ortino