论中外BITs在港澳特区的适用--以“谢业深案”和“世能案”为视角

摘要

在2007年的香港居民谢业深诉秘鲁政府投资仲裁案中，ICSID仲裁庭裁定1994年《中国-秘鲁BIT》适用于该案，曾引发各界对中外BITs能否适用于香港地区的热烈讨论。2015年，新加坡高等法院在另一起涉及中国澳门地区投资者的仲裁案件中，裁定1993年《中国-老挝BIT》不适用于澳门特别行政区。上述两案仲裁庭的裁决虽然有不同理由作为基础，但其最终结论的迥异表明，中外BITs能否适用于港澳地区问题仍悬而未决。究其原因，主要在于：（1）港澳地区的国内、国际法律地位本身具有复杂性；（2）《基本法》作为国内法层面的单边规定无法对抗BIT中的双方合意；（3）中外BITs措辞用语存在不足；（4）谢业深案仲裁庭有扩大解释之嫌；（5）澳门世能案中的双边解决模式存在不足。在中外BITs是否适用于港澳特区的问题上，不宜采取一刀切的方式，应通过双边协商途径实现与《基本法》规定的对接。%On 19 June 2009,the ICSID Tribunal issued the Decision on Jurisdiction for the case of Tza Yap Shum v.Peru,holding that it has jurisdiction on and competent for this case,which called forth sharp criticism since most of Chinese scholars considered the China-Peru BIT 1994 should not be directly applied to Hong Kong SAR under the"One Country Two Systems".On 20 January 2015,the High Court of Singapore issued a Jurisdiction Decision on another investment arbitration case which between a Macau investor and the government of Laos,and said the China-Laos BIT 1993 does not apply to Macau.Since the cited BIT and legal base of both cases are quite similar,completely contradictive decisions from different tribunals make us believe that whether the PRC BITs applies to Hong Kong and Macau SAR is still remain mystery.There are at least five reasons that can account for this legal uncertainty:(1)The complexity of"One Country Two Systems";(2)Unilateral measures under the SAR Basic Law couldn't substitute for both parties consent under BIT;(3)the wording of PRC BIT is not clearly enough;(4)the tribunal improperly expanded its jurisdiction in the case of Tza;(5)the bilateral solution under the case of Sanum v.Laos is not representative to potential other circumstances.