The Concept of Investment Under The ICSID Convention

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 2, 95 - 140, 15.12.2017

Melis Avşar

Öz

In this article, the concept of "investment" has been examined in accordance with the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID). The objective of the Center established by the ICSID Convention is to resolve the "investment" disputes between the Parties and foreign investors of the other State Party through conciliation or arbitration. The concept of "investment", which determines the borders of the jurisdiction of the center, is not defined in the Convention. For this reason, in practice, it has seen that the concept of investment in referee decisions is defined in different forms. In arbitration decisions, the methods used to define the concept of investment also differ. In this article, these different methods and the different conclusions reached are examined, taking into account the opinions of the doctrine. In addition to not forming the basis of our work, a brief evaluation has been made on the view that the concept of investment is not deliberately defined and its content is left to the state parties. According to this view, the scope of the investment concept will be determined within the framework of the bilateral investment treaties. Today, the most commonly accepted solution in doctrine and practice is that there must be an investment under Article 25 of the Convention, so that a dispute can be seen at the ICSID arbitration center, and the parties should regard this dispute as an investment dispute.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ICSID, Investment arbitration, Investment disputes, Notion of investment, Salini decision, Phoenix decision, Quiborax decision, Bilateral investment treaties

ICSID Konvansiyonu’na Göre Yatırım Kavramı

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Devletler ve Diğer Devletlerin Vatandaşları Arasındaki Yatırım Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümlenmesi Hakkında Konvansiyon (ICSID) uyarınca “yatırım” kavramı incelenmiştir. ICSID Konvansiyonu ile kurulan Merkezin amacı, taraf devletler ile diğer taraf devlet vatandaşı yabancı yatırımcılar arasında çıkan “yatırım” uyuşmazlıklarını uzlaştırma veya tahkim yolu ile çözmektir. Merkezin, yargı yetkisinin sınırlarını belirleyen “yatırım” kavramı, Konvansiyonda tanımlanmamıştır. Bu sebeple, uygulamada hakem kararlarında yatırım kavramının farklı şekillerde tanımlandığı görülmektedir. Hakem kararlarında, yatırım kavramının tanımlanmasında kullanılan metotlar da farklılık arz etmektedir. Çalışmada, bu farklı metotlar ve varılan farklı sonuçlar, doktrindeki görüşler de dikkate alınarak incelenmiştir. Çalışmamızın esasını oluşturmamakla birlikte, yatırım kavramının bilinçli olarak tanımlanmadığı ve kapsamının belirlenmesinin taraf devletlere bırakıldığı görüşü hakkında da kısa bir değerlendirme yapılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu görüşe göre yatırım kavramının kapsamı, yatırımcı devletin vatandaşı olduğu devlet ile ev sahibi devlet arasında akdedilen iki taraflı yatırımın karşılıklı korunması ve teşviki anlaşmaları çerçevesinde belirlenecektir. Bugün, doktrin ve uygulamada çoğunlukla kabul edilen çözüm ise, bir uyuşmazlığın ICSID tahkim merkezinde görülebilmesi için, hem Konvansiyonun 25. maddesi kapsamında bir yatırım olmalıdır, hem de taraflar da bu uyuşmazlığı bir yatırım uyuşmazlığı olarak görmelidir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

ICSID, Yatırım tahkimi, Yatırım uyuşmazlıkları, Yatırım kavramı, Salini kararı, Phoenix kararı, Quiborax kararı, İki taraflı yatırımın karşılıklı korunması ve teşviki anlaşmaları

Kaynakça

• AKINCI, Ziya; Milletlerarası Tahkim, güncellenmiş ve genişletilmiş 4. Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2016.
• ANDREEVA, Yulia; “The Tribunal in Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malaysia Adopts a Restrictive Interpretation of the Term Investment”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 25, No 4, 2008, s. 503-506.
• ATAMAN FİGANMEŞE, İnci; “Manufacturing Consent to Investment Treaty Arbitration By Means of the Notion of ‘Arbitration Without Privity’”, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, C 43, S 60, 2011, sy. 187-201. (Arbitration Without Privity)
• ATAMAN FİGANMEŞE, İnci; “Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkim ile Yatırım Tahkimi Arasındaki Farklar”, MHB, C 31, S 1, 2011, sy. 91-152. (Ticari Tahkim Yatırım Tahkimi Farkları)
• ATAMAN FİGANMEŞE, İnci; “Son On Yıl İçinde Türkiye’nin Muhatap Olduğu ICSID Davaları”, Uluslararası Tahkim Kongresi, 22-24 Mayıs 2012, İstanbul, sy. 18-35. (ICSID Davaları)
• AYDOĞMUŞ, Ayşe Yasemin; “İki Taraflı Yatırım Anlaşmalarındaki En Ziyade Müsaadeye Mazhar Millet Kaydına İstinaden ICSID’e Başvuru İmkanı”, MHB, C. 29, S. 1-2, 2009, sy. 21-84.
• BANİFATEMİ, Yas; “Unresolved Issues in Investment Arbitration”, Modern Law for Global Commerca, Congress to celebrate the fortieth annual session of UNCITRAL Vienna, 9-12 July 2007, s. 1-14.
• Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends In Investment Rulemaking, United Nations Publication, New York and Geneva, 2007.
• BODDICKER, Joseph M.; “Whose Dictionary Controls?: Recent Challenges to the Term “Investment” in ICSID Arbitration”, American University International Law Review, Vol 25, Issue 5, 2010, sy. 1031-1071.
• BROCHES, Aaron; “The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes: Some Observations on Jurisdiction”, Columbia Journal Of Transnational Law, Vol 5, 1966, sy. 263-281.
• CHAIKA, Ionna; The non-enforcement of International Commercial Awards as a violation of Bilateral Investment Treaties, International Hellenic University, LLM Thesis, Thessaloniki, 2015.
• CHATTERJEE, C.; “Investment-Related Promossiory Notes Are Investmenst under the ICSID Convention-Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela”, The Journal of World Investment, Vol 3, 147-160.
• COMMISSION, Jeffery P.; “Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Citation Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 24, No 2, 2007, s. 129-158.
• Contracting States and Measures Taken by Them for the Purpose of the Convention, ICSID/8, June 2017, https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/icsiddocs/ICSID%208-Contracting%20States%20and%20Measures%20Taken%20by%20Them%20for%20the%20Purpose%20of%20the%20Convention.pdf (Çevrimiçi 1.10.2017).
• CREMADES, Bernardo M.; “Resurgence of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America”, Business Law International, Vol 7, No 1, 2006, sy. 53-73.
• ÇALIŞKAN, Yusuf; “ICSID Jurisdiction: Whose Dictionary Will Be Used For the Definition of Investment and the Scope of Consent”, Foreign Investment Law, Ceyda Süral/Ekin Ömeroğlu Editors, Seçkin Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016, sy. 91-106.
• ÇALIŞKAN, Zeynep; “Türkiye’nin Taraf Olduğu İkili ve Çok Taraflı Anlaşmalarda Yatırım Kavramı”, MHB, Yıl 29, Sayı 1-2, 2009, sy. 85-118.
• DEKASTROS, Michail; “Portfolio Investment: Reconceptualising the Notion of Investment under the ICSID Convention”, The Journal of World Investment&Trade, Vol 14, 2013, s. 286-319.
• DEMİRKOL, Berk; “The Notion of ‘Investment’ in International Investment Law”, Turkish Commercial Law Review, Vol 1, No 1, 2015, sy. 41-50.
• DIEL, Katharina; “Interessengerechtert-Effizienter-Verlässlicher: Konkurrierende Formen der Internationalen Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit Vergleichende Analyse und Reformbedarf des ICSID Systems” DAJV Newsletter, Vol 36, 2011, sy. 20-30.
• DÖRR, Oliver/SCHMALENBACH, Kirsten; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, 4. Ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2012.
• DUPONT, Pierre-Emmanuel; “The Notion of ICSID Investment: Ongoing ‘Confusion’ or ‘Emerging Synthesis?”, The Journal of World Investment&Trade, Vol 12, 2011, s. 245-272. EKŞİ, Nuray; ICSID Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması Tenfizi ve İcrası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2009.
• GAILLARD, Emmanuel; “Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSID Practice”, International Investment Law fort he 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, 2009, sy. 403-416.
• GARCIA-BOLIVAR, Omar E.; “Protected Investment and Protected Investors: The Outer Limits of ICSID’s Reach”, Trade, Law and Development, Vol 2, No 1, 2010, s. 145-168.
• GHAFFARI, Peyman; “Jurisdictional Requirements under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention: Literature Review”, The Journal of Wordl Investment&Trade, Vol 12, 2011, sy. 603-628.
• GIVEN, John P.; “Malaysia Historical Salvors Sdn., Bhd. v. Malaysia: An End to the Liberal Definition of Investment in ICSID Arbitrations”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Vol 31, Issue 3-4, 2009, sy. 467-500.
• GİRAY, Faruk Kerem; Milletlerarası Yatırım Tahkiminde Kamulaştırmadan Doğan Tazminat ve Tazminatın Hesaplanmasında Kullanılan Yöntemler, 2. Bs., Beta Yayınları, 2013.
• GRABOWSKI, Alex; “The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini”, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol 15, No 1, 2014, sy. 289-309.
• HAMIDA, Walid Ben; “Two Nebulous ICSID Features: The Notion of Investment and the Scope of Annulment Control-Ad Hoca Committee’s Decision in Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 24, Issue 3, 2007, s. 287-306.
• HWANG, Michael; “Recent Developments in Defining Investment”, ICSID Review, Vol 25, No 1, 2010, s. 21-25.
• JEZEWSKI, Marek; There Is No Freedom Without Solidarity: Towards A New Definition of Investment in International Economic Law, Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper No 51/08, Inaugural Conference, Geneva, July 15-17 2008.
• JOHANNSEN, Sven Leif Erik; “Der Investionsbegriff nach Art. 25 Abs. 1 der ICSID-Konvention”, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, Christian Tietje/Gerhard Kraft (edt.), Heft 87, 2009, sy. 1-34.
• JUNG ENGFELT, Helena; “Should ICSID Go Gangnam Style in Light of Non-Traditional Foreign Investmens Including Those Spurred on by Social Media? Applying an Industryspecific Lens to the Salini Test to Determine Article 25 Jurisdiction”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol 32, Issue 1, 2014, sy. 44-63.
• LEGUM, Barton; “Defining Investment and Investor: Who Is Entitled to Claim?”, Makıng The Most Of Internatıonal Investment Agreement: A Common Agenda, Symposium Co-Organised by ICSID, OECD and UNCATD, 2005, s. 1-6.
• LEVESQUE, Celine; “Case Comment: Abaclat and Others v. Argentina Republic: The Definition of Investment”, ICSID Review, Vol 27, No 2, 2012, sy. 247-254.
• MANCIAUX, Sebastien; “The Notion of Investment: New Contreversies”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol 9, Issue 6, 2008, sy. 1-24.
• MARTIN, Antoine; “Definition of ‘Investment’: Could a Persistent Objector to the Salini Tests be Found in ICSID Arbitral Practice?”, Global Jurist, Vol 11, Issue 2, 2011, s. 1-19.
• MBENGUE, Makane Moise; “Rules of Interpretation (Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)”, ICSID Review, Vol 31, No 2, 2016, s. 388-412.
• MORTENSON, Julian Davis; “Case Comment: Quiborax SA et al v Plurinational State of Bolivia, The Uneasy Role of Precedent in Defining Investment”, ICSID Review, Vol 28, No 2, 2013, sy. 259 (Quiborax).
• MORTENSON, Julian Davis; “The Meaning of ‘Investment’: ICSID’s Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol 51, No 1, 2010, sy. 257-318 (Investment).
• NALÇACIOĞLU ERDEN, Zeynep H.; Milletlerarası Yatırım Hukukunda Dolaylı Kamulaştırma, On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul, 2015.
• NEWCOMBE, Andrew/PARADELL, Lluis; Law and Practice of Investment Treaties Standarts of Treatment, Kluwer Law International, Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York, The Netherlands, 2009.
• NOMER, Ergin/EKŞİ, Nuray/ÖZTEKİN GELGEL, Günseli; Milletlerarası Tahkim Hukuku, Cilt I, 5. Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016.
• NOMER, Ergin/EKŞİ, Nuray/ÖZTEKİN GELGEL, Günseli; Milletlerarası Tahkime İlişkin Mevzuat ve Antlaşmalar, Cilt II, 2. Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2014. PAZARCI, Hüseyin; Uluslararası Hukuk, gözden geçirilmiş 14. Bası, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2015.
• PELLET, Alain; “The Case Law of the ICJ in Investment Arbitration”, ICSID Review, Vol 28, No 2, 2013, sy. 223-240.
• ROSENFELD, Friedrich; “Bridging the Gap between Investment and Commercial Arbitration”, Global Fellows Forum, New York University School of Law, New York, 2014.
• SCHEURER, Christoph H./MALINTOPPI, Loratta/REINISCH, August/SINCLAIR, Anthony; The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2. Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• SCHREUER, Christoph; “Diversity and Harmonization of Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration”, Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on., Brill, 2010, sy. 129-152.
• SEROZAN, Rona; “Hukukta Yöntem”, Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler’e Armağan, Yaşar Üniversitesi Dergisi, Sayı 8 (Özel Sayı), 2013, 2423-2440.
• SHANY, Yuval; “Contract Claims vs. Treaty Claims: Mapping Conflicts Between ICSID Decisions on Multisourced Investment Claims”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol 99, No 4, 2005, sy. 835-851.
• SHIHATA, İbrahim F. I.; “Towards a Greater Depoliticization of Investment Disputes: The Roles of ICSID and MIGA”, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol 1, Issue 1, 1986, sy. 1-25.
• SORNARAJAH, M.; “Portfolio Investments and the Definition of Investment”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol 24, Issue 2, 2009, sy. 516-520 (Portfolio Investment).
• SORNARAJAH, M.; The International Law on Foreing Investment, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, s. 309 (Foreign Investment).
• STERN, Brigitte; “The Contours of the Notion of Protected Investment”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol 24, No 2, 2009, sy. 534-551.
• SUR, Melda; Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, 9. Bası, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2015.
• ŞANLI, Cemal; Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları, 6. Bası, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2016.
• ŞİT KÖŞGEROĞLU, Banu; “Model İkili Yatırım Anlaşmaları ve Türkiye’nin Model İkili Yatırım Anlaşması Taslağı”, TBB Dergisi, S. 107, 2013, sy. 143-172.
• TIMMER, Laurens J.E.; “The Meaning of ‘Investment’ as a Requirement for Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae of the ICSID Centre”, Journal Of International Arbitration, Vol 29, No 4, 2012, sy. 363-373.
• TİRYAKİOĞLU, Bilgin; Doğrudan Yatırımların Uluslararası Hukukta Korunması, Dayındarlı Hukuk Yayınları, Ankara, 2003.
• VARGIU, Paolo; “Beyond Hallmarks and Formal Requirements: a ‘Jurisprudence Constante’ on the Notion of Investment in the ICSID Convention”, The Journal of World Investment&Trade, Vol 10, 2009, sy. 753-768.
• VILLIGER, Mark E.; Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Martinus NIJHOFF Publischers, Leiden, Boston, 2009.
• WAIBEL, Michael; “Opening Pandora’s Box: Sovereign Bonds in International Arbitration”, The American Journal Of International Law, Vol 101, 2007, 711-759.
• WEINIGER, Matthew/KANTOR, Elizabeth; “Case Comment: KT Asia Investment Group BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan: Ratione Personae and Ratione Materiae”, ICSID Review, Vol 30, No 3, 2015, sy. 533-538.
• YACKEE, Jason Webb; “The First Investor-State Arbitration”, University of Wisconsin Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper No 1375, 2015.
• YALA, Farouk; “The Notion of ‘Investment’ in ICSID Case Law: A Drifting Jurisdictional Requirement?”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 22, No 2, 2005, sy. 105-126.
• YIJUN TIAN, George; “Current Issues of Cross-Border Personal Data Protection in the Context of Cloud Computing and Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Join or Withdraw”, Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2016, sy. 367-408.
• YILMAZ, İlhan; Uluslararası Yatırım Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkim Yoluyla Çözümü ve ICSID, Beta Yayınevi, 1. Bası, İstanbul, 2004.
• ZIVKOVIC, Velidemir; “Recognition of Contracts As Investments in International Investment Arbitration” , European Journal of Legal Studies, Vol 5, No 1, 2012, sy. 174-194.
• Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöhaz Vagyonkezelö Zrt. v. The Republic of Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3, 14.04.2015.
• ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/08/2, 18.5.2010.
• Bayındır Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, 14.11.2005.
• Biwater Gauff Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/05/22, 24.07.2008.
• Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4, 24.05.1999.
• Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi es Szolgaltato Kft. v. The Republic of Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, 16.04.2014.
• Fedax N. V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/96/3, 11.08.1997.
• Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/03/25, 16.08.2007.
• Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/09/11, 01.11.2010.
• Helnan International Hotels A/S v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, 17.10.2006.
• Jan de Nul N.V. Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypy, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/04/13, 16.06.2006.
• Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. The Arabic Republic of Egypt, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/03/11, 06.08.2004.
• KT Asia Investment Group BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/09/8, 17.10.2013.
• Lanco International Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, Preliminary Decision: Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, ICSID Case No ARB/97/6, 8.11.1998.
• Malaysian Historical Salvors SDB, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, Award on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/05/10, 17.05.2007.
• Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, Decision on the Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/05/10, 16.04.2009.
• Mr. Patrick Mitchell, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No ARB/99/7, 01.11.2006.
• Phoenix Action Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/06/5, 15.04.2009. Postova Banka A.S. and Istrokapital SE v. The Hellenic Republic, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/13/8, 09.04.2015,
• PSEG Global Inc., The North American Coal Coproration, and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republich of Turkey, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5, 04.06.2004.
• Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplun v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, 27.09.2012.
• Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/00/4, 31.07.2001.
• Sapiem S.p.A. v. People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/05/7, 30.6.2009.
• Sapiem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, ICSID Case No ARB/05/07, 21.03.2007.
• Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, Decision On Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/07/12, 11.09.2009.