国际投资仲裁中共同过失的有关问题

更新时间：2018-06-19 11:41:28  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1570次

投资仲裁中共同过失的概念

共同过失（或共同过错）[Contributory negligence (or contributory fault)]不应与减轻损失的义务混为一谈。虽然它们都是“减损赔偿的因素”(compensation-reducing factors)[2]减轻损失的义务产生于违反国际义务的行为发生之后。

此外，并非所有具有因果关系的因素都足以确定共同过失/过错。在这方面，作为或不作为“必须是过失和应受责备的行为”（ must represent negligent and reproachable behaviour）。[3]正如尤科斯（Yukos）仲裁庭所指出的，“这种促成（contribution）必须是实质性的和重要的。”[4]

例如，在Burlington一案中，仲裁庭多数意见认为，需要确定两个主要因素来证明存在共同过失/过错：一个诱发性因素（triggering factor）和/或一个决定性因素（decisive factor）。[5]仲裁庭多数意见裁定，Burlington的行为对于所造成的损害既不具有诱发性也不具有决定性。应当指出，Brigitte Stern教授不同意这一观点。她没有提及诱发性因素/决定性因素，而是强调说，Burlington的行为“在导致征收的一系列事件中起到了重要作用（a major role inthe chain of events leading to the expropriation）。”[6]

最后，关于共同过失的抗辩，被申请人承担举证责任，以证明申请人对其自身的损害也有过失。[7]

投资仲裁因共同过失减少损害赔偿

仲裁庭对共同过失而导致损害赔偿减少的程度通常有自由裁量权。[8]

例如，在Copper Mesa v. Ecuador中，仲裁庭庭决定将赔偿金减少30%[9]。在MTD v. Chile案中，仲裁庭将赔偿金减少50%[10]，Occidental Petroleum案中仲裁庭将赔偿金减少了25%[11]，Yukos案仲裁庭也采用了同样的减幅。[12]

然而，参与仲裁的各方确实会批评仲裁庭对减少程度的评估缺乏准确性问题，特别是如果仲裁庭的裁定似乎并非基于任何客观的估价方法时。例如，在对MTD v. Chile case一案的裁决提起的撤销诉讼程序中，被申请人批评仲裁庭“没有说明其减少赔偿金额的理由，即任意和无法解释的百分之五十……”。[13]

委员会（Committee）决定，虽然减少损害赔偿金有进一步理由是有用的，但是因为仲裁庭已经分析了双方的过失，因此没有就有关计算给出详细解释并没有过错。

 “委员会同意被申请人的意见，即在现阶段可以给予按50:50分额赔偿责任的进一步理由。但是，仲裁庭已经比较详细地分析了双方的过失，认为这些过失在当时情况下既关键又重大（material and significant）。与比较过错的情况一样，双方对造成的损失所起的作用大不相同，而且只有在难以衡量的情况下，仲裁庭才有相应的评估余地。此外，在与损害分摊有关的投资条约索赔中，被申请人的违约行为通常具有监管性质，而申请人的行为则有所不同，即未能维护其自身利益，而不是违反对东道国的任何义务。

在这种情况下，损失被平均分担的情况并不少见。对此已经达成一致的国际仲裁庭往往没有对所涉及的计算作出任何“确切的解释”（ ‘exactexplanation’）。在这种情况下，仲裁庭在对双方的失败进行了详细分析之后，几乎没有什么可说的，而且不解释也不是导致可撤销的错误。“[14]

【英文部分】

Notion of Contributory Negligence in Investment Arbitration

Contributory negligence (or contributory fault) should not be confused with a duty to mitigate losses. Although they are both “compensation-reducing factors”[2], the duty to mitigate losses arises after a breach of an international obligation has occurred.

Furthermore, not every contribution to causation is sufficient in order to establish contributory negligence/fault. In this respect, an action or omission “must represent negligent and reproachable behaviour.”[3] As pointed out by the Yukos tribunal, “the contribution must be material and significant.”[4]

For example, in the Burlington case, the majority of the arbitral tribunal held that two main factors needed to be established to prove contributory negligence/fault: a triggering factor and/or a decisive factor.[5] The majority ruled that Burlington’s conduct was neither triggering nor decisive with respect to the damages incurred. It should be noted that Professor Brigitte Stern disagreed with this position. Instead of referring to the triggering/decisive factor, she emphasized that Burlington’s conduct had played “a major role in the chain of events leading to the expropriation.”[6]

Finally, with respect to the defence of contributory negligence, Respondents bear the burden of proof in order to establish that Claimants contributed to their own damages.[7]

Reduction of Compensation due to Contributory Negligence in Investment Arbitration

The degree of reduction of compensation due to contributory negligence is generally left to the discretion of arbitral tribunals.[8]

For instance, the Copper Mesa v. Ecuador tribunal decided to reduce compensation by 30%[9], the MTD v. Chile tribunal reduced damages by 50%[10], the Occidental Petroleum tribunal by 25%[11], and the same reduction was used by the Yukostribunal.[12]

However, it is true that the parties involved in the arbitration can deplore the lack of precision in tribunals’ assessment of the degree of reduction, especially when it seems that the tribunal’s findings are not based on any objective valuation method. This was, for example, the case in the annulment proceedings initiated against the award in theMTD v. Chile case, where the Respondent criticized the tribunal’s “failure to state its reasons upon which it diminished the award by an arbitrary and unexplained fifty percent…”[13]

The Committee decided that, although further reasons for the reduction of damages would have been useful, since the arbitral tribunal had analysed the failings of the two parties, it had committed no error by not giving the exact explanation of the calculations involved:

“The Committee agrees with the Respondent that some further reasons for a 50:50 split of damages could have been offered at this stage. But the Tribunal had already analysed the faults on both sides in some detail, holding both to be material and significant in the circumstances. As is often the case with situations of comparative fault, the role of the two parties contributing to the loss was very different and only with difficulty commensurable, and the Tribunal had a corresponding margin of estimation.Furthermore, in an investment treaty claim where contribution is relevant, the respondent’s breach will normally be regulatory in character, whereas the claimant’s conduct will be different, a failure to safeguard its own interests rather than a breach of any duty owed to the host State.

In such circumstances, it is not unusual for the loss tobe shared equally. International tribunals which have reached this point have often not given any ‘exact explanation’ of the calculations involved. In the event, the Tribunal having analysed at some length the failings of the two parties, there was little more to be said – and no an nullable error in not saying it.”[14]

[1] I. Marboe, “Calculation of compensation and damages in international investment law”, Oxford University Press (2017), 2nd ed.,p. 121, para. 3.242.

[2] S. Ripinsky, Assessing Damages in Investment Disputes: Practice in Search of Perfect, 10 J. World Investment & Trade5 (2009), p. 19.

[3] I. Marboe, “Calculation of compensation and damagesin international investment law”, Oxford University Press (2017), 2nd ed.,p. 121, para. 3.243.

[4] Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation,PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, p. 502, para. 1601.

[5] Burlington Resources v. Ecuador, ICSID CaseNo. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award, p. 228, para. 580.

[6] Burlington Resources v. Ecuador, ICSID CaseNo. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award, p. 228, para. 580, n.1113.

[7] Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Peru, ICSID CaseNo.  ARB/14/21, Award, 30 November 2017, p. 211,para. 568.

[8] Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation,PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, p. 502, para. 1637.

[9] Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Ecuador, PCACase No. 2012-2, Award, 15 March 2016, p. 33, para. 6.102.

[10] Mtd v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award,25 May 2004, p. 90, para. 243.

[11] Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Ecuador,ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, 5 October 2012, p. 308, para. 825.

[12] Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation,PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, p. 502, para. 1637.

[13] Mtd v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7,Decision on annulment, 21 March 2007, p. 40, para. 98.

[14] Mtd v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7,Decision on annulment, 21 March 2007, p. 41, para. 101.