TİCARET ŞİRKETLERİ BAKIMINDAN TÂBİİYET PLANLAMASI VE ULUSLARARASI YATIRIM HUKUKU AÇISINDAN DOĞURDUĞU SONUÇLAR

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 61 - 101, 31.10.2021

Talat Kaya

https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1018657

Öz

Ulusal ve uluslararası hukukta ticaret şirketlerinin tâbiiyetini tayin açısından çoğunlukla kuruluş yeri ve merkez yeri esasları kullanılmaktadır. Uluslararası yatırım anlaşmaları da yatırımcı şirketleri bu esaslar temelinde tanımlamaktadır. Hakem heyetlerinin ise kuruluş yeri esası ile herhangi bir nitelemeden yoksun merkez yeri esasını biçimsel olarak yorumlaması tâbiiyet planlamasına olanak sağlamıştır. Tâbiiyet planlaması, şirketlerin yatırımın başlangıcı veya sonrasındaki bir dönemde elverişli yatırım iklimi ve/veya hukuki alt yapı sunan bir devletin tâbiiyetini edinimi olarak tanımlanabilir. Şirketler uluslararası yatırım hukuku bağlamında genellikle yatırım tahkimine başvurma hakkına kavuşmak amacıyla tâbiiyet planlamasına girişmektedir. Ancak kaynak ülke ile gerçek bir bağı bulunmayan tabela şirketler tarafından başlatılan tahkim davaları tâbiiyet planlaması uygulamasına karşı bir tepkiyi de beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu tepki iki şekilde ortaya çıkmıştır. İlk olarak yatırım tahkimi davalarında ev sahibi devletlerin itirazları üzerine bazı hakem heyetleri tâbiiyet planlamasının amacı ve/veya gerçekleştirime zamanını dikkate alarak bu uygulamayı hakkın kötüye kullanılması yasağı içerisinde değerlendirmiştir. İkinci olarak ise devletler son dönemde yapmış oldukları ikili ve çok taraflı yatırım anlaşmalarında yatırımcı tanımını daraltmış ve/veya tâbiiyet planlamasına karşı faydaların reddi hükümlerine yer vermişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Şirket tâbiiyeti, tâbiiyet planlaması, yatırım tahkimi, hakkın kötüye kullanılması, faydaların reddi

CORPORATE NATIONALITY PLANNING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW

Öz

In national and international law, place of incorporation and seat are mostly used criteria in determining corporate nationality. International investment agreements also define corporate investors based on these criteria. Besides formal interpretation of place of incorporation criterion and the seat criterion without any qualification by the arbitral tribunals has allowed nationality planning. Nationality planning can be defined as the acquisition of the nationality of a state that provides a favorable investment climate and/or legal infrastructure for corporates at the beginning of the investment or at a later period. In the context of international investment law, companies usually engage in nationality planning to obtain the right to apply for investment arbitration. However, arbitration proceedings initiated by shell companies that have no genuine link to the home state have brought a reaction against the practice of nationality planning. This reaction occurred in two ways. First, on the objections of the host states, some arbitral tribunals, considering the purpose and/or the time of realization of the nationality planning, have deemed this practice as abuse of rights. Secondly, states have narrowed the definition of investor and/or put denial of benefits provisions against nationality planning in their recent bilateral and multilateral investment agreements.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate nationality, nationality planning, investment arbitration, abuse of rights, denial of benefits

Kaynakça

• Albayrak G, “Diplomatik Koruma Hakkında Taslak Maddeler (Draft Articles On Diplomatic Protection)”, Yıl 4, 2019/2, YBHD, s. 501–507.
• Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim, 5. Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık, 2020.
• Arat T, Ticaret Şirketlerinin Tâbiiyeti, Sevinç Matbaası, 1970.
• Aybay R/ Özbek N/ Ersen Perçin G, Vatandaşlık Hukuku, Siyasal Kitapevi, 2019.
• Aygül M, Uluslararası Özel Hukukta Şirketlere Uygulanacak Hukukun Tespiti, Seçkin Yayınları, 2007.
• Becht M/Mayer C/ Wagner H.F, Where Do firms Incorporate? Deregulation and the Cost of Entry, European Corporate Governance Institute, Working Paper 70/2006, 2007.
• Berki O.F, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, Cilt I, Yedinci Baskı; Güzel Sanatlar Matbaası, 1970.
• Adam Boczek, Flags of Convenience: An International Legal Study, Harward University Press, 1962.
• Casas M, “Nationalities of Convenience, Personal Jurisdiction, and Access to Investor-State Dispute Settlement”, 2016, 49 (1), New York University Journal Of International Law And Politics, s. 63-127.
• Crawford J, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, Ninth Edition, Oxford Publishing, 2019.
• Demirkol B, “Yatırım Tahkiminde Paravan Şirketlerin Yol Açtığı Yetki Sorunları”, 2012, 28 (3), Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, 301-357.
• Doğan V, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, 16. (Tıpkı) Baskı, Savaş Yayınevi, 2020. Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, Int’l Law Comm’n, U.N. Doc. A/61/10, 2006.
• Esen E, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması, 2. Baskı, Beta Yayınları, 2012.
• Erten R, “ICSID Tahkimi”, 1998, 19(4), Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, s. 207-230.
• Feldman M, “Setting Limits on Corporate Nationality Planning in Investment Treaty Arbitration”, 2012, 27(2) ICSID Review, s. 281-302. Foote S.QC, The Bona Fide Investor: Corporate Nationality and Treaty Shopping in Investment Treaty Law, PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Faculty of Law, 2020.
• Fatouros A, “National Legal Persons In Internatıonal Law” in Rudolf L. Bındschedler, Thomas Buergenthal, Karl Doehrıng, Jochen Abr. Froweın, Günther Jaenıcke, Herbert Mıehsler, Hermann Mosler, Frıtz Münch, Danıel P. O'connell, Karl Josef Partsch, Pıerre Pescatore,
• Henry G. Schermers, Ulrıch Scheuner, Hans-Jürgen Schlochauer, Max Sørensen, Helmut Strebel (Eds.), Encyclopedia Of Disputes Installment, Elsevier, 1987, s. 299-306.
• Göger E, Türk Tâbiiyet Hukuku, Dördüncü Bası, Sevinç Matbaası 1979.
• Gölcüklü İ, “ICSID Tahkiminde Yetkiden Kaynaklanan Bazı Sorunlar”, 2018, 38(2), Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, s. 285-309.
• Güngör G, Tâbiiyet Hukuku, 8. Bası, Yetkin Yayınları, 2020.
• Happ R, “Denial of Benefits Clauses and any other Mechanisms that Limit the Scope of BITs for Investors” in The Determination of the Nationality of Investors under Investment Protection Treaties, Institute of Economic Law (Transnational Economic Law Research Center), 2011, s. 61-68.
• Janig P, “Cynicism and Nationality Planning in International Investment Law”, in Björnstjern Baade · Dana Burchardt/ Prisca Feihle/ Alicia Köppen/ Linus Mührel/ Lena Riemer/ Raphael Schäfer (Eds.), Cynical International Law?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht), vol 296, Springer, 2021, s. 309-326.
• Kaya T, “Uluslararası Ticaret ve Yatırım Hukuku Bakımından Tütün Ürünlerinin Düz Paketlenmesi Meselesi”, 2018, 24(2), Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, s. 1045-1085.
• Kim S.M/ Kim J, “Flags of Convenience in the Context of the OECD BEPS Package”, 2018, 49(2), Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, s. 221-238.
• McLachlan C/ Shore L/ Weiniger M, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, 2nd Edition, 2017.
• Niboyet J.P, “Şirketlerin Hakikaten Bir Tâbiiyeti Mevcut Mudur?”, (Çev: Hicri Fişek), 1952, 9(3), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, s. 97-113.
• Nomer E, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, 27. Baskı, Filiz Kitapevi, 2020.
• Perkams M, “The Definition of Nationality of Investors in. International Investment Agreement (IIAs) – Taking Stock of the. Criteria Used in Modern Investment Law” in The Determination of the Nationality of Investors under Investment Protection Treaties, Institute of Economic Law (Transnational Economic Law Research Center), 2011, s. 13-24.
• Radi Y, Rules and Practices of International Investment Law and Arbitration (Law in Context). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
• Seelig M.L/ Sessler A/ Paulsen H, “Impact of MoMiG on “Sitztheorie”/”Gründungstheorie” – Consequences for German BITs” in The Determination of the Nationality of Investors under Investment Protection Treaties, Institute of Economic Law (Transnational Economic Law Research Center), 2011, s. 25-36.
• Sinclair A.C, “ICSID’s Nationality Requirements”, 2018, 23(1), ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, s. 57-118.
• Schreuer C, “Nationality Planning” in Arthur W. Rovine (Ed), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers, 2012, s. 15-27.
• Schreuer C/ Malintoppi L/ Reinisch A/ Sinclair A, A Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Second Edition, 2009.
• Sornarajah S, “Good Faith, Corporate Nationality, and Denial of Benefits”, in Andrew D Mitchell/ M Sornarajah/ Tania Voon (eds), Good Faith and International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, 2015, s. 117-142.
• Söyler Y, “Barcelona Traction Davası ve Uluslararası Hukuka Etkisi”, 2015, 19(3), Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, s. 207-247.
• Tekinalp G, Türk Hukukunda Ortaklıkların Vatandaşlığı, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi 50. Yıl Armağanı, Cumhuriyet Döneminde Hukuk, Fakülteler Mahallesi, 1973.
• Tiryakioğlu B, “Yatırımlar ve Uluslararası Tahkim Arasındaki İlişki”, 2007, 1(2), Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Dış Ticaret Politikaları, s. 169-184. UNCTAD, World Investment Report Investor Nationality: Policy Challenges, 2016.
• Voon T/ Mitchell A/ Munro J, “Legal Responses to Corporate Manoeuvring in International Investment Arbitration”, 2014, 5(1), Journal of International Dispute Settlement, s. 41-68.
• Zhang X.J, “Proper Interpretation of Corporate Nationality under International Investment Law to Prevent Treaty Shopping”, 2013, 6(1), Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, s. 49-74. Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award, 5 March 2011.
• Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (New Application: 1962) (Belg. v. Spain), Judgment,1970 I.C.J. Rep. 3.
• Burimi SRL v Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/11/18, IIC 593, Award, 29 May 2013.
• Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9), Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2013.
• CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003.
• Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, 22 September 2014. Hutley Enterprises Ltd v Russia PCA Case No AA 226, IIC 415 UNCITRAL, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009.
• KT Asia Investment Group BV v Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/09/8, IIC 615, Award, 2013.
• Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd. v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Decision on Jurisdiction, 10 June 2010.
• Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, (French Zone), Advisory Opinion, PCIJ Reports, Series B, No. 4.
• Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Decision on the Respondent's Jurisdictional Objections, 1 June 2012.
• Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015.
• Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009.
• Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005.
• Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. ‎2005-04/AA227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009.
• Orascom TMT Investments S.à r.l. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35, Final Award, 2017.
• Saluka Investments BV v. The Czech Republic, (UNCITRAL) PCA Case No. 2001-04, Partial Award, 17 March 2006.
• Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26, Award, 29 January 2016.
• Tidewater v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2013. The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Decision on the Respondent’s Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 18 April 2008.
• Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004.
• Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Dissenting Opinion (Chairman Prosper Weil), 29 April 2014. Venoklim Holding B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/22, Award, 3 April 2015. Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada, <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/01-Initial-Provisions-and-General-Definitions.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 28 Mayıs 2021.
• Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/3126/download > Erişim Tarihi 30 Haziran 2021. Erişim Tarihi 30 Haziran 2021.
• Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/763/download> Erişim Tarihi 1 Haziran 2021.
• ICSID Convention, <https://icsid.worldbank.org/resources/rules-and-regulations/convention/overview> Erişim Tarihi 1 Haziran 2021. Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement> Erişim Tarihi 30 Haziran 2021.