投资保护条约中最惠国待遇条款（MFN Clause）通常要求缔约国将给予第三国投资者和投资的优惠待遇无条件地给予缔约另一国的投资者和投资。最惠国待遇条款适用于实体性事项已经为各界所接受,但对于该条款能否适用于争端解决等程序性事项以及在何种情况下可以适用一直众说纷纭，见仁见智。本文介绍了关于最惠国条款能否用来确立仲裁庭的管辖权这一问题的两派学说和判例。
Establishing JurisdictionThrough an MFN Clause
通过最惠国条款确立仲裁庭管辖权
There has been along-running debate on whether a Most-Favoured-Nation clause (“MFN clause”) canbe applied to procedural matters in investor-State arbitration. The question isof particular significance where the basic treaty - such as many of the Chinese BITs - provides for international arbitration only asregards the determination of the amount of compensation for expropriation; or requires the claimant to gothrough domestic litigation before initiatingarbitration. If the answer to the question is positive, then a claimant can expand the tribunal’s jurisdiction or bypass the domesticlitigation requirement by importing a more favourable dispute resolution clausein a third-party treaty. However, investment-treaty jurisprudence is yet toyield a consistent approach on this issue.
关于最惠国条款能否适用于投资者与东道国仲裁中的程序性事项的争论由来已久。这一问题在基础条约规定仲裁庭仅就征收赔偿的金额具有管辖权（中国签订的很多投资条约便是如此）、或者要求原告在启动仲裁前必先经过国内诉讼程序时尤为重要。如果最惠国条款可以适用于程序性事项，则原告可以通过援引第三方条约中更为优惠的争议解决条款扩大仲裁庭的管辖权或者规避国内诉讼的前置程序。但是，目前投资条约的相关案例在这一问题上结论并不一致。
The Maffezini School
Maffezini学派
Maffezini is thefirst case where jurisdiction of the tribunalisestablished through an MFN clause. Thetreaty in question, the Argentina-Spain BIT, contains a precondition toinvestment arbitration: the investorhas to engage innegotiations with the host State for 6 months and then submit the dispute tothe competent tribunals of the host State for 18 months before arbitration canbe initiated. The domestic litigation requirement was not complied with.Relying on the MFN clause in the Argentina-Spain BIT (i.e. the basic treaty),the claimant argued that that the dispute resolution provision in the Chile-SpainBIT, which does not contain the 18-months domestic litigation requirement, shouldbe applied in determining the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Maffezini案是仲裁庭的管辖权通过最惠国条款得以确立的第一个案件。该案争议涉及的条约——阿根廷与西班牙之间的双边投资条约，包含了一个投资仲裁的前置条件：投资者必须先与东道国进行6个月的磋商，再将争议诉诸东道国的有管辖权的法院进行18个月的诉讼，然后才能启动仲裁。该案中，申请方没有遵守先进行国内诉讼的要求。依据阿根廷与西班牙之间的双边投资条约（即基础条约）中的最惠国条款，申请人主张智利-西班牙双边投资条约中的争议解决条款并不包含18个月国内诉讼的要求，应作为决定该案的仲裁庭是否具有管辖权的依据。
Spain argued that, inaccordance with the ejusdem generis principle,an MFN clause could only attract matters belonging to the same category towhich the clause itself relates. Thus the MFN clause could only be applied tosubstantive protection and not to procedural matters. The tribunal rejectedthis argument.
（东道国）西班牙主张，根据同类规则（ejusdem generis），最惠国条款只能被适用于与其自身属于同一类别的事项。因此，最惠国条款只能适用于对实体性权利的保护，而不能被适用于程序性事项。仲裁庭否定了这一主张。
The tribunal took theview that dispute settlement arrangements, although not strictly a part of the substantivetreatment, are inextricably related to the protection of foreigninvestors and hence are fully compatible with the ejusdem generis principle.[1]Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to rely on the more favourable dispute settlementprovision in the Chile -Spain BIT.
仲裁庭认为，争议解决的安排虽然在严格意义上不是实体待遇的一部分，但却与对外国投资者的保护密不可分，因此通过最惠国条款援引其他条约中的争议解决安排完全符合同类解释规则。在该案中，申请方有权依赖智利-西班牙双边投资条约中更为优惠的争议解决条款来提起仲裁。
In reaching its decisionthe Maffezini tribunal emphasisedthat dispute settlement is essential for the protection of rights envisagedunder BITs. In a subsequent case Siemens,the tribunal in deciding to grant jurisdiction based on an MFN clause alsoemphasised on the object and purpose of the BIT, which was to protect andpromote investments. Dispute settlement was seen as part of the protectionoffered under the BIT.[2]
在得出上述结论的过程中，Maffezini案的仲裁庭强调了争议解决对于双边投资条约项下权利的保护来说是至关重要的。在后来的Siemens案中，仲裁庭在决定基于最惠国条款而行使管辖权时，也强调了双边投资条约的目的在于保护和促进投资。争议解决被视作双边投资条约（为投资者）提供的保护的一部分。
The Plama School
Plama学派
Faced with the same issue,the Plama tribunal reached anopposite conclusion. The tribunal opined: “[A]n MFN provision in a basic treatydoes not incorporate by reference dispute settlement provisions in whole or inpart set forth in another treaty, unless the MFN provision in the basic treatyleaves no doubt that the Contracting Parties intended to incorporate them”.[3]
Plama案的仲裁庭就同样的问题得出了截然相反的结论。该案的仲裁庭认为：“基础条约中的最惠国条款不能通过援引而部分或全部地吸纳其他条约中的争议解决条款，除非该等最惠国条款毫无疑义地明确了缔约方有意吸纳其他条约中的争议解决条款。”
To require an MFN clauseto leave “no doubt” as to the incorporation of dispute settlement provision isto set a very high threshold. In a dictum,the arbitrators noted that the expression “with respect to all matters”, whichoften appears in MFN clauses, does not alleviate the doubt.[4] The onlyauthority cited for this proposition is Siemensv Argentina. Oddly, the Siemens tribunalconcluded that an MFN clause that refers not to “all matters” but only to“treatment” of investments and “activities related to the investments” was sufficiently wide to be applied toprocedural matters.[5]
要求最惠国条款“毫无疑义地”明确吸纳争议解决条款，是设立了非常高的标准。在附带意见（dictum）中，仲裁员们指出，最惠国条款中常见的表述“关于一切事项”，并不能减轻疑义。这一观点所援引的唯一依据是Siemens v Argentina案。奇怪的是，Siemens案的仲裁庭却认定，即使最惠国条款所援引的不是“一切事项”而仅仅是对于投资的“待遇（treatment）”以及“与投资相关的活动”，这样的条款仍然足够宽泛，可以适用于程序性事项。
If the Plama tribunal is correct, it wouldprobably take a provision as clear as the one contained in the UK-Model BIT (whichexpressly states that, for the avoidance of doubt, the treatmentprovided for in the MFN clause shall apply to dispute settlement provisions) to meet the “no doubt” threshold.[6]
如果Plama案的仲裁庭是正确的，那么恐怕一个最惠国条款必须得像英国的双边投资条约范本（UK-Model BIT）中的最惠国条款一样清楚（该条款明确规定，为免除疑义，最惠国条款提供的待遇应适用于争议解决条款），才能达到“毫无疑义”的标准。
The Plama tribunal’s decision seems to be influenced by the principlethat an agreement to arbitrate must be clear and unambiguous. It follows that merereference to “all matters” is insufficient. However, this approach seems to beincompatible with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of theTreaties and case law, which requires international instruments to be construedin accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words in light of the treaty’sobject and purpose,neither restrictively nor liberally.[7]
Plama案仲裁庭的裁决似乎是受到了仲裁协议必须清楚、明确这一原则的影响。因此，在最惠国条款中笼统地援引“一切事项”是不够的。但是，仲裁庭的这一观点似乎与《维也纳条约法公约》的第31条以及相关案例不一致，该公约第31条要求对条约依其用语之通常意义并参照条约之目的及宗旨加以解释，而不应作限制性或宽泛性的解释。
Conclusion
结论
International tribunalsadopt different approaches when it comes to the question of the applicabilityof an MFN clause to dispute settlement arrangements.It appears that the Maffezini school places more emphasis onthe object and purpose of the treaty (as opposed to its language). On thecontrary, the Plama school tends tofocus on the literal meaning of the text and takes the view that the objectivesof BITs are not sufficiently precise to allow incorporation of agreement toarbitrate.
在处理最惠国条款能否被适用于程序事项此一问题时，仲裁庭的观点并不一致。Maffezini学派似乎更强调条约的目的与宗旨（而不是条约的用语）。与之相反，Plama学派则更注重条约文本的字面含义，并且认为双边投资条约的目的并不能足够准确地（表明缔约方）允许将仲裁协议吸纳进来。
The difference of thetwo approaches demonstrates that, the greater the weight placed on theobjectives of the treaty, the higher the chance that the tribunal would allowincorporation by way of MFN clause. On the other hand, if the tribunal focusesmore on the text of the MFN clause itself, incorporation is more likely to bedisallowed.[8]
两种观点的分歧表明，仲裁庭越是注重条约的目的，就越有可能允许通过最惠国条款而吸纳（其他条约中的争议解决条款）。反之，如果仲裁庭更关注最惠国条款的文本本身，则更可能不允许通过最惠国条款吸纳其他条约中的争议解决条款。
[1] Maffezini v Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Objectionto Jurisdiction, para. 54-56.
[2] Simens AG v Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision onJurisdiction, para. 80-81 and 102.
[3] Plama Consortium Ltd v Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decisionon Jurisdiction, para. 223.
[4] Ibid, para. 205.
[5]Simens AG v Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8,Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 103.
[6] See also a note to the 21 November 2003 draft of the FreeTrade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), which indicates that the MFN clause isexpressly limited in its scope to matters ‘with respect to the establishment,acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or otherdisposition of investments’ and ‘does not encompass international disputeresolution mechanism’.
[7] Amco Asia Corporation and Others v. The Republic of Indonesia,ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Award on Jurisdiction, para. 14(i).
[8] J. Romesh Weeramantry, TreatyInterpretation in Investment Arbitration (Oxford UP 2012), p. 181
（英文撰稿：彭禧雯/Ellen Pang, 北京大学法学学士、香港大学法律博士、牛津大学法律硕士。
中文翻译：石佳霖/Jialin Shi, 北京大学法学学士，汇仲律师事务所律师）
声明：本文观点仅供参考，不可视为汇仲律师事务所及其律师对有关问题出具的正式法律意见。如您有任何法律问题或需要法律意见，请与本所联系。
汇仲律师事务所的网址为：www.huizhonglaw.com