ULUSLARARASI YATIRIM UYUŞMAZLIKLARI ÇÖZÜM YÖNTEMLERİNİN GELİŞİMİ
Doğrudan yabancı yatırım günümüzde uluslararası
hukukun en hızlı gelişen alanlarından biridir. Bunun nedeni ise 2. Dünya Savaşı’ndan
sonra ortaya çıkan ikili yatırım anlaşmaları olmuştur. Bu yatırım
anlaşmalarının katkısı yabancı yatırımcıyı ve yatırımını korumayı garanti
etmesidir. Diğer bir değişle uyuşmazlık çıktığı durumlarda artık yatırımcı,
yatırım yaptığı ev sahibi devletin mahkemelerinde değil, tarafsız ve bağımsız
tahkim hakem heyeti önünde uyuşmazlığı çözüme kavuşturabilecektir. Böylelikle,
asıl sorun olan devlet egemenliğini sınırlandıracaktır. Her ne kadar tahkim yönteminin gelmesi, 2. Dünya savaşından sonra
büyük bir adım olarak kabul edilse de zaman içerisinde sonuç bakımından bir
farklılık yaratmadığı görülmektedir. Savaştan önce yatırımcı uyuşmazlık
çıktığında baştan ev sahibi devletin mahkemesine giderek egemenlik baskısını
görürken, savaştan sonra tahkim sonrası alınan kararın ev sahibi devlette
icrasında aynı etkiyle karşılaşmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu makalede 2. Dünya Savaşı
öncesi ve sonrası yabancı yatırım uyuşmazlıklarının çözüm yöntemleri
karşılaştırılarak, aslında savaş sonrası tahkime başvurulmasının devlet
egemenliğinin azaltılması noktasında sonucu değiştirmediği savunulacaktır. Bunun
da yatırım tahkiminin geleceği için büyük bir tehlike arz ettiği çünkü savaş
öncesi gibi mahkeme sistemenine dönüş olduğu görülmektedir. Bunun en belirgin
örneği de milletlerarası yatırım mahkemesinin kurulma çalışmalarıdır.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS
Foreign direct investment is
currently one the fastest growing parts of international law. It has increased
due to the proliferation of bilateral investment treaties (BIT). The
contribution of the BITs has ensured the protection of foreign investors and
investment. In other words, in cases where there is a dispute, the investor
will settle the dispute before the impartial and independent arbitration
tribunal instead of the courts of the host state. Thus, BITs limit the host
states’ sovereignty by providing arbitration method. Although the introduction
of arbitration method is considered to be a big step after the Second World War,
it cannot be said that it solves the fundamental problem over the time. Before
the war, when an investment dispute arose, the investor was used to go to the
court of the host state and see the sovereignty power. After the war, investor
has been encountered the same effect in the execution of the arbitral award in
the host state. Therefore, the focus of the article will be on the history of
international investment law based on dispute settlement systems of BITs
compared with historical investment dispute settlement systems. In addition, it
is argued that the application to arbitration does not change the result of
state sovereignty. It may signal future problems in this field since it causes
revisiting to the court system. The most obvious example of this is the efforts to
establish a multilateral investment court.
___
- AIG Capital Partners, Inc. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (AIG, Inc.), [2005] EWHC (Comm)
2239, [22], [2006] 1 WLR 1420 3
- Akgul, Z. (2008). “The Development of International Arbitration on Bilateral Investment
Treaties: Disputes Between States and Investor, ICSID Cases Against Turkey
Regarding Energy Sector” (Universial Publishers 2008) available at:
accessed 15 January 2013.
- Al-Adba, N M. (2014). “The Limitation of State Sovereignty in Hosting Foreign Investments
and The Role of Investor-State Arbitration to Rebalance The Investment Relationship”,
(University of Manchester) 181.
- Bishop, R D. Crawford, J. and Reisman, W M. (2005). Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases,
Materials, and Commentary. KIL.
- Boğa, S. (2017), Finansal Kırılganlıklar ve Uluslararası Sermaye Hareketleri: Gelişmekte
Olan Ülkeler Üzerine Bir Analiz. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 9(16),
1-17.
- Bordwell, P. (1906). Calvo and the Calvo Doctrine18 Green Bag 377-381.
- Bubba, R J. and Rose-Ackerman, S. (2007). Bits and Bargains: Strategic Aspects of Bilateral
and Multilateral Regulation of Foreign Investment” 27 Int'l Rev.L.& Econ. 291–311
- Butler, N. (2012). “The State Of International Investment Arbitration: The Possibility Of
Establishing An Appeal Mechanism” The University of Leeds, School of Law
- Choi, W M.(2007). The Present and Future of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Paradigm 10.3J Intl Econ L 725-747.
- Cremades, B M. (2004). “Disputes Arising Out Of Foreign Direct Investment In Latin
America: A New Look At The Calvo Doctrine And Other Jurisdictional Issues” 59
Disp.Resol.J. 78.
- Dalrymple, C K. (1996). Politics and Foreign Direct Investment: The Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency and the Calvo Clause” 29 Cornell Int'l L.J. 161.
- Dolzer, R. and Schreuer, C. (2008). Principles of International Investment Law, OUP
- Dolzer, R. and Stevens, M. (1995). Bilateral Investment Treaties. KIL
- Douglas, Z. (2009). The International Law of Investment Claims. CUP
- Egger, P. and Pfaffermayr, M. (2004). “The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on
Foreign Direct Investment” 32 Journal of Comparative Economics 788.
- Gallagher, N. “Parallel Proceedings, Res Judicata And Lis Pendens: Problems And Possible
Solutions’ in Mistelis, L M. and Lew, J DM. (2006). Pervasive Problems in International
Arbitration. KIL
- Germany No. 91 / W1, Franz J. Sedelmayer (Germany) v. Russian Federation, Federal
Republic of Germany, Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court], 4 October 2005.
- Ginsburg, T. (2005). “International Substitutes for Domestic Institutions: Bilateral
Investment Treaties and Governance” 1 IRLE 118.
- Gottwald, E J. (2006). “Leveling the Playing Field: Is It Time for a Legal Assistance Centre
for Developing Nations in Investment Treaty Arbitration?” Bepress Legal Series
Working Paper 1804.
- Guilds, J C. (1992). “”If It Quacks Like A Duck:" Comparing The ICJ Chambers To
International Arbitration For A Mechanism Of Enforcement” 16 Md.J.Int'l L.& Trade
43.
- Guzman, A T. (1998). “Why LDCs Sign Treaties that Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity
of Bilatreal Investment Treaties?” 38 Va.J.Int'l L. 640.
- Hamrock, K J.(1992). “The ELSI Case: Toward an International Definition of "Arbitrary
Conduct””. 27 Tex.Int'l L.J. 837.
- Hanink, D M. (1994). The International Economy: A Geographical Perspective. J. Wiley
- Hoekman, B M. and Kostecki, M M. (2009). The Political Economy of the World Trading
System: The WTO and Beyond. OUP
- Jackson, J N. (1999). Legal Problems of International Economic Relations. West Publishing.
- Kaushal, A. (2009). “Revisiting History: How The Past Matters For The Present Backlash
Against The Foreign Investment Regime”. 50 Harv.Int'l L.J. 491.
- Kishoiyian, B. (1994). “The Utility of Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Formulation of
Customary International Law”. 14 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 327.
- Landes, D S. (1999). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some
So Poor. WW Norton & Company.
- Lavranos N, ‘The first steps towards a Multilateral Investment Court’ (13 July 2017) see from
< http://www.ciarb.org/news/ciarb-news/newsdetail/news/2017/07/13/the-first-stepstowards-a-multilateral-investmentcourt-(mic)> last accessed 16 November 2017.
- Liberian E. Timber Corp. v. Gov’t of the Republic of Liberia (LETCO I), 650 F Supp 73
(SDNY 1986), aff’d 854 F2d 1314 (2d Cir 1987)
- Miles, K. (2013). Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment, and The
Safeguarding of Capital. CUP.
- Murphyt, S D. (1991). “The ELSI Case: An Investment Dispute at the International Court of
Justice” 16 Yale J.Int'l L. 391.
- Neumayer, E. and Spess, L. (2005). “Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Increase Foreign
Direct Investment to Developing Countries?”. 10 World Development 1567.
- Salacuse, J W. and Sullivan, N P. “Do BITs Really Work?: An Evaluation of Bilateral
Investment Treaties and their Grand Bargain” in Sauvant, K P. and Sachs, L E. (2009).
The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties,
Double Taxation Treaties, and Investment Flows. OUP.
- Schefer, K N. (2016). International Investment Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
- Schreuer, C. (2007). “Investment Protection and International Relations’ The law of
international relations—Liber amicorum Hanspeter Neuhold”. Eleven International
Publishing 345-358.
http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/wordpress/pdf/87_investment_protect.pdf> last accessed
10.11.2017.
- Schwebel, S M. (2004). “Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary
International Law”. 98 ASIL 27.
- Shea, D R. (1955). The Calvo Clause: A Problem of Inter-American and International Law
and Diplomacy. University of Minnesota Press.
- Sauvant, K P and Sachs L E. (2009). The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment:
Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties, and İnvestment Flows. New
York: Oxford University Press.
- Szasz, P C. (1971). “The Investment Disputes Convention and Latin America” 11 Va.J.Int'l L.
256.
- UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2018,
https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2018_en.pdf last accessed 08.05.2019.
- Vandevelde, K J. (1998). ”Sustainable Liberalism and the International Investment Regime”
19 Mich.J. Int'l L. 373.
- Vandevelde, K J. (1998). ‘The Political Economy of a Bilateral Investment Treaty’ 92 the
American Journal of International Law, 621.
- Vandevelde, K J. (2005). ‘A Brief History of International Investment Agreements’12 UC
Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, 157.
- Vig Z and Gajinov, T. (2016). ‘The Development of Compensation Theories in International
Expropriation Law’ 57 Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 447–461.