ปัญหาว่าด้วยวิธีการตีความหลักเหตุจ�ำเป็น (Necessity Defense) ในกฎหมายการลงทุนระหว่างประเทศ: กรณีศึกษาประเทศอาร์เจนตินา ภายใต้ปัญหาวิกฤติทางเศรษฐกิจ Problem with Interpretative Methodology in International Investment Arbitration: A Case Study of Argentina’s Economic Necessity Defense. Tidarat Sinlapapiromsuk*
Abstract In light of financial crisis between 2001-2002, the Argentine government enacted allegedly ‘necessary’ measures, known collectively as ‘capital control regimes’, which had a grave impact on foreign direct investment in Argentina, leading to a greatest number of investor–state claims brought against a single state in history. As a consequence, several ICSID tribunals were confronted with the question of how to interpret ‘the non-precluded measure (NPM) clause’ (i.e. the treaty-based defense of necessity) contained in the relevant Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), particularly under Article XI of the US-Argentina BIT. A more recent decision in Continental Casualty v. Argentina added even further confusion, interpreting such treaty-based exceptions in the light of the WTO jurisprudence relating to necessity defense, specifically under GATT Article XX. By analyzing various interpretative methodologies advanced by different investor-state tribunals, this research paper will ultimately propose that the tribunals should not resort to the WTO jurisprudence in the course of interpreting the NPM clause under the US-Argentina BIT without adequately justifying its interpretative methodology in adopting such jurisprudence. This is because such inadequacy will potentially render the tribunal’s interpretative methodology inconsistent with the principles of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and the doctrine of lex specialis, given, inter alia, I would like to thank Professor Peter Day (Adjunct faculty at University of Washington School of Law) for useful comments and support. *
กันยายน 2558
13
