2018年4月6日，根据UNCITRAL《仲裁规则》组成的仲裁庭就“Dawood Rawat诉毛里求斯”一案的管辖权作出裁决（常设仲裁法院第2016-20号案例）。在对1973年法国与毛里求斯签订的《投资保护条约》（《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》或《条约》）的解释进行全面分析之后，尽管该条约对双重国籍者的适用未作规定，但是仲裁庭仍拒绝给予双重国籍（dual nationals）–一个法国－毛里求斯商人–有关投资保护条约的保护。这种做法有悖于先前的投资条约决定，如Serafín García Armas and other v Venezuela案，在该案中，仲裁庭拒绝了被申请国提出的司法管辖异议，该异议基于相关的双边投资条约(《双边投资条约》)被申请国没有排除双重国籍投资者的规定。

争议产生的背景

本案申请人是Dawood Rawat先生，他是毛里求斯国民，1969年与一名法国妇女结婚，1998年获得法国国籍。在20 世纪80年代后期，Rawat先生通过雇佣关系获得了英美保险的股份。在20世纪90年代，他进一步收购了英美保险集团和毛里求斯其他企业的股份。

2014年11月，毛里求斯政府对Rawat先生的企业立案进行洗钱（money laundering）调查。据称政府对他的企业采取了一系列措施，申请人认为这些措施违反了《条约》。

《条约》没有规定对根据《条约》产生的争端进行投资者-东道国仲裁。相反，《条约》第9条规定：

“关于其他缔约国的国民、公司或其他法人在一方缔约国领土内拟进行投资的协议，必须包括一项条款，规定如果不能在短时间内达成友好协议（amicable agreement），则应根据《关于解决国家与其他国家国民间投资争端的公约》，将其与这些投资有关的争端提交国际投资争端解决中心[ICSID]。”

因此，《条约》给予外国投资者的唯一“程序性”保护是，如果他们与一缔约国（Contracting State）订立了投资协议，该协议必须包括一项ICSID仲裁条款。

为此，申请人称，《条约》中的最惠国条款（“MFN”）涵盖了争议解决。因此，申请人要求从《芬兰和毛里求斯共和国政府关于促进和保护投资的协定》（“Finland-Mauritius BIT”）中引进解决争端的机制，以便获得属人管辖权（ jurisdiction ratione voluntatis.）。

在这一背景下，被申请人提出了两项管辖权异议：缺乏属人管辖权（ratione personae）的原因之一是，Rawad先生具有双重国籍，缺乏属人管辖权（ratione voluntatis）另一个理由是，声称毛里求斯不同意根据《条约》将任何争端提交国际仲裁。仲裁庭首先对缺乏属人管辖权的异议作出裁决。如果认定有理由，因而驳回本案，仲裁庭并没有就被申请人的第二项异议作出裁决。

法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约对双重国籍者的适用

与其他双边投资条约不同的是，法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约在其任何条款中都没有界定“投资者”。相反，《条约》在法文中提到“国民”或“侨民”（“ressortissant”）。此外，《条约》没有关于“合格投资者”的定义。

在对被申请人的管辖权异议作出裁决时，仲裁庭首先确定Rawat先生拥有何种国籍。它的第一项事实调查结果是：(一) 申请人在争端发生之前早已成为法国国民；(二) 申请人自出生之日起一直是毛里求斯国民。

仲裁庭接着审议了整个《条约》中使用的“国民”一词是否包括或排除双重国籍者的问题。申请人根据《条约》的通常含义，其中没有明确排除双重国籍者的保护。然而，仲裁庭超越了通常的意义解释，并援引了《维也纳条约法公约》（“the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties，VCLT”）第31条来解释《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》。

第31条第1款规定“[a] 条约应依其用语按其上下文并参照条约之目的及宗旨所具有之通常意义，善意解释之。”根据这项规定，仲裁庭的结论是，根据《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》的目标和宗旨解释“侨民”一词的通常含义，目的是将双重国籍者纳入双边投资条约的保护下。

然而，仲裁庭也适用第31条第2款，其中规定“就解释条约而言，上下文除指连同前言及附件在内之条文外，并应包括[……]。在这方面，仲裁庭研究了《条约》中使用“ressortissant”一词的条款。如前所述，《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》第9条规定，与东道国订立投资合同的法国和毛里求斯国民应根据《投资争端解决中心公约》对其争端进行仲裁。根据这项规定，仲裁庭随后援引了《解决投资争端国际中心公约》第25条第2款–与《条约》不同的是，该条载有“国家”/“侨民”的定义（法文版本）。ICSID对“另一缔约国的国民”的定义明确排除双重国籍者。因此，根据《解决投资争端国际中心公约》第25条，如果争端产生于法国－毛里求斯双重国籍者（如 Rawat先生）和东道国之间的投资合同，将不存在ICSID的管辖权。

仲裁庭的结论是，《条约》第9条中明确提及《国际投资争端解决中心公约》是“对《双边投资条约》“ressortissant”一词必须加以解释的部分内容”（¶177）。仲裁庭裁定，第9条引入《国际投资争端解决中心公约》造成了“《国际投资争端解决中心公约》下的“侨民”概念与《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》中的“侨民”概念之间严格和常规的一致（alignment）”(¶178)。因此，仲裁庭的结论是，《国际投资争端解决中心公约》第9条中的强制性适用无疑将双重国籍者排除在《条约》适用范围之外。

此外，仲裁庭裁定，有效利用的解释原则（the interpretative principle of effet utile）支持这一结论。根据这一原则，如果有可能作出有意义的解释，裁决者（adjudicator）应该放弃会使条约或合同的内容变得毫无意义的解释（仲裁庭引用了Cemex v Venezuela一案）。虽然《维也纳条约法公约》没有提到有效利用原则（effet utile principle），但仲裁庭的结论是，该原则“被普遍接受为源自《维也纳条约法公约》第31条第1款所设想的善意解释条约的原则”（¶182）。在适用这一原则时，仲裁庭认为，将第9条中的“侨民”解释为适用于双重国籍者是没有意义的，因为根据第9条订立的任何仲裁条款（规定ICSID仲裁）都是无效的。

最惠国条款对争端解决规定的适用

在认定缺乏属人管辖权之后，仲裁庭没有处理《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》中有关最惠国条款适用的第二个管辖异议，从《芬兰－毛里求斯双边投资条约》中引进争端解决条款。然而，仲裁庭的确提到了在根据最惠国条款解决这一法律问题时本会采用的原则，因为这一问题在未来根据最惠国条款处理的案件中可能具有相关性和意义。首先，它将在有关《双边投资条约》的每个最惠国条款中界定“事项”/“matiéres”。其次，将根据《双边投资条约》第8条，决定这些“事项”是否属于同一性质，以便将“事项”与“对这些事项的处理”加以区分。

不一致的裁决？

如果《双边投资条约》对双重国籍者的适用未作规定，投资仲裁庭历来就允许对申请进行开庭审理。例如，在Serafín García Armas and other v Venezuela案中，仲裁庭（根据《西班牙-委内瑞拉双边投资条约》和《贸易法委员会规则》组成）研究了委内瑞拉和西班牙缔结的双边投资条约，并评估了这些条约是否明确排除双重国籍者，发现其中一些国家确实排除了双重国籍者。仲裁庭认为，只有条约明确排除的情况才会支持双重国籍者不能遵守其保护的裁定。由于《西班牙-委内瑞拉双边投资条约》中没有这类措辞，仲裁庭维持其审理申请人请求的管辖权。巴黎上诉法院后来撤销了这一裁决，但依据其他理由。

从调和这一明显不一致角度，可以强调，《法国－毛里求斯双边投资条约》第9条的特殊规定在多数《双边投资条约》中并不常见，通常规定投资者－东道国仲裁作为可适用的争端解决机制。在这种情况下，《双边投资条约》是法国和毛里求斯于1973年加入、后来于1974年批准的“老一代双边投资条约”的一部分。

奇怪的是，法国和毛里求斯在2010年达成了现代双边投资条约，这实际上规定了投资者—东道国之间的仲裁。但是，两国尚未批准（ratified）这项条约。毛里求斯在很大程度上依赖于这一事实，主张这表明各缔约方没有同意进行投资者—国家的仲裁，从而否定了申请人通过最惠国条款确立管辖权的可能性。如果看到今后仲裁庭在审理需要适用最惠国条款来解决争端的案件时采用这一观点，将是很有趣的。

英文部分

Dawood Rawat v Mauritius: Dual-national claim dismissed based on treaty context interpretation

By Christian Leathley

On 6 April 2018, a Tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules rendered an Award on Jurisdiction in the case Dawood Rawat v. The Republic of Mauritius (PCA Case 2016-20).  Following a thorough analysis of the interpretation of the 1973 Investment Protection Treaty between the Republic of France and Mauritius (the “France-Mauritius BIT” or the “Treaty”), the Tribunal denied protection of the relevant investment protection treaty to a dual national – a French-Mauritian businessman – despite the treaty was silent on its application to dual nationals.  This approach was contrary to prior investment treaty decisions, such as Serafín García Armas and other v Venezuela, in which tribunals have rejected jurisdictional objections brought by respondent states where relevant the bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) was silent on the exclusion of dual nationals.

Background of the dispute

The claimant in this case is Mr Dawood Rawat, a national of Mauritius who married a French woman in 1969, acquiring French nationality in 1998. In the late 1980s, Mr Rawat acquired a shareholding stake in British American Insurance through his employment.  During the 1990s he acquired further shares in the British American Insurance group and other Mauritian businesses.

In November 2014, the Mauritian government initiated certain investigations into Mr Rawat’s businesses for money laundering. The government allegedly adopted a series of measures against his businesses which the Claimant considered were in violation of the Treaty.

The France-Mauritius BIT does not provide for investor-state arbitration for disputes arising under the Treaty. Instead, the Treaty provides in Article 9 that:

“Agreements relating to investments to be made in the territory of one of the Contracting States by nationals, companies or other legal persons of the other Contracting State, must include a clause providing that their disputes relating to these investments shall be submitted, in the event that an amicable agreement cannot be reached within a short period of time, to the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID], with a view to their settlement by arbitration, in accordance with the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and nationals of other States.”

Therefore, the only ‘procedural’ protection that the Treaty grants to foreign investors is that, if they enter into an investment agreement with a Contracting State, that agreement must include an ICSID arbitration clause.

For this reason, the Claimant argued that the most-favored-nation (“MFN”) clause in the Treaty covered dispute settlement.  The Claimant therefore sought to import the dispute settlement mechanism from the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (the “Finland-Mauritius BIT”), in order to gain jurisdiction ratione voluntatis.

Against this background, the Respondent brought two jurisdictional objections: one for lack of ratione personae given that Mr Rawad was a dual national; and another for lack of ratione voluntatis alleging that Mauritius had not consented to submit any disputes under the Treaty to international arbitration. The Tribunal decided to rule on the lack of ratione personae objection first.  Having found merit in the objection – and therefore dismissed the case-, it did not rule on the Respondent’s second objection.

Application of the France-Mauritius BIT to dual nationals

Unlike other BITs, the France-Mauritius BIT does not use the term “investor” in any of its provisions. Instead, the Treaty refers to “national” or “ressortissant” in French.  In addition, the Treaty does not contain a definition of a ‘qualifying investor’.

In ruling on Respondent’s objection, the Tribunal first determined what nationalities Mr Rawat held. Its first factual findings were that (i) the Claimant became a French national long before the dispute arose, and (ii) the Claimant had been a Mauritian national since his date of birth.

The Tribunal then proceeded to consider whether the term “national” as used throughout the Treaty included or excluded dual nationals. The Claimant relied on the plain meaning of the Treaty which contained no express exclusion of dual nationals from its protection. However, the Tribunal went further than the plain meaning interpretation and referred to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties (“VCLT”) to interpret the France-Mauritius BIT.

Article 31(1) provides that “[a] treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” Under this provision, the Tribunal concluded that interpreting the ordinary meaning of the term “ressortissant” in its context and in light of the object and purpose of the France-Mauritius BIT pointed to the inclusion of dual nationals under the protection of the BIT.

However, the Tribunal also applied Article 31(2) which provides that “[t]he context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, […] its preamble and annexes.” In this regard, the Tribunal looked at the provisions of the Treaty where the term “ressortissant” was used.  As mentioned, Article 9 of the France-Mauritius BIT provides that nationals from France and Mauritius, who enter into investment contracts with a host state, shall arbitrate their disputes under the ICSID Convention.  Based on this provision, the Tribunal then referred to Article 25(2) of the ICSID Convention which – unlike the Treaty- contains a definition of “national” / “ressortissant” (in the French version).  The ICSID definition of “national of another Contracting State” expressly excludes dual nationals.  Therefore, under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention there would be no ICSID jurisdiction if a dispute arose out of an investment contract entered into by a French-Mauritius dual national (such as Mr Rawat) and a host state.

The Tribunal concluded that the explicit reference to the ICSID Convention in Article 9 of the Treaty was “part of the context in which the BIT term “ressortissant” must be interpreted” (¶ 177). The Tribunal ruled that the inclusion of the ICSID Convention in Article 9 created “a strict and conventional alignment between the notion of “ressortissant” under the ICISD Convention and under the France-Mauritius BIT” (¶ 178). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the mandatory reference to the ICSID Convention in Article 9 implicitly excluded dual nationals from the scope of application of the Treaty.

In addition, the Tribunal ruled that the interpretative principle of effet utile supported its conclusion.  Under this principle, the adjudicator shall discard interpretations which would render the text of a treaty or contract meaningless, when a meaningful interpretation is possible (the Tribunal cited to Cemex v Venezuela).  While the effet utile principle is not contained in the VCLT, the Tribunal concluded that it “is generally accepted to flow from the principles of interpretation of treaties in good faith as envisioned in VLCT Article 31(1)” (¶ 182). In applying this principle, the Tribunal considered that it would be meaningless to interpret “ressortissant” in Article 9 as applying to dual nationals because any arbitration clause entered into under Article 9 (providing for ICSID arbitration), would be ineffective.

Application of MFN clauses to dispute settlement provisions

Having found that personal jurisdiction was lacking, the Tribunal did not address the second jurisdictional objection relating to the applicability of the MFN clause from the France-Mauritius BIT to import the dispute settlement clause from the Finland-Mauritius BIT.  However, the Tribunal did refer to the test it would have applied when resolving this legal issue which may be of relevance and interest in future cases based on the MFN clause.  First, it would have defined “matters” / “matiéres” in each MFN clause of the relevant BITs.  Second, it would have decided whether those “matters” were of same kind in order to distinguish “matters” from “treatment of those matters” pursuant to Article 8 of each BIT.

Inconsistent decisions?

Where a BIT is silent on the applicability to dual nationals, investment tribunals have historically allowed claims to be heard. For example, in Serafín García Armas and other v Venezuela, the Tribunal (constituted under the Spain-Venezuela BIT and the UNCITRAL Rules) looked at the BITs entered into by Venezuela and Spain and assessed whether those contained an express exclusion of dual nationals, finding some of them did.  In the Tribunal’s opinion, only express exclusions in the treaty would support a finding that dual nationals cannot abide by its protections. Because the Spain-Venezuela BIT did not contain such language, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction to hear the Claimants’ claims.   The Court of Appeals of Paris later annulled this award but on another basis.

One view of reconciling this apparent inconsistency would be to emphasize that the particular provision of Article 9 of the France-Mauritius BIT is uncommon in most BITs, which would normally provide for investor-state arbitration as the applicable dispute resolution mechanism. In this case, the BIT was part of the ‘old generation BITs’ as it was entered into by France and Mauritius in 1973 and later ratified in 1974.

Curiously, France and Mauritius entered into a modern BIT in 2010 which in fact provides for investor-state arbitration. However, this treaty has not yet been ratified by both states.  Mauritius relied heavily on this fact to argue that this showed the Contracting Parties had not consented to investor-state arbitration, denying the Claimant the possibility to establish jurisdiction via the MFN clause.  It will be interesting to see, if in the future, tribunals adopt this view when hearing a case that requires application of the MFN clause to dispute settlement.