ULUSLARARASI YATIRIM TAHKİMİNDE DEVLET LEHİNE MANEVİ TAZMİNATA İLİŞKİN DÜŞÜNCELER

Öz

Uluslararası yatırım tahkimi uygulamasında maddi olmayan zararlar için parasal tazminat taleplerinin artmakta olduğu görülmektedir. Maddi olmayan zarar kavramının kapsamının göreceli olarak belirsiz olması ve konu ile ilgili öğretideki görüşlerin farklılık arz etmesi hakem heyetlerinin bu talepleri değerlendirirken karşılaştıkları güçlüklerin nedenleri arasındadır. Hakem heyetlerinin yabancı yatırımcılar lehine manevi tazminata hükmederken kararsızlık yaşamadıkları, buna karşılık tazminat talebinde bulunanın davalı devlet olduğu durumlarda isteksiz oldukları görülmektedir. Bugüne kadar hakem heyetleri kamuya açık hiçbir davada yatırımcıların kötü niyetli eylemlerinden dolayı davalı devletlerin maruz kaldığı gayri maddi zararların parasal tazmin ile giderilmesi yönünde karar vermemişlerdir. Bu yönde karar verilmesinin önünde hukuki bir engel bulunmamasına rağmen hakem heyetleri davalı devletleri başka araçlar kullanarak tatmin etmeyi tercih etmişlerdir. Bu makalede, uluslararası yatırım tahkiminde manevi tazminatın yeri irdelenmekte ve hakem heyetlerinin davalı devlet lehine manevi tazminata hükmetmedeki isteksizliklerinin nedenleri hakem heyetlerinin ilgili kararlarının ışığında değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası yatırım tahkimi
• manevi tazminat
• sürecin suistimali
• ICSID
• ISDS

Öz

Requests for monetary compensation for non-material damages in the practice of international investment arbitration are on the rise. The relatively vague nature of the scope of non-material damages and the existing conflicting views of scholars on the issue are among the hurdles the tribunals encounter while addressing these requests. It has been observed that the tribunals have not been much indecisive when awarding moral damages to claimants. Yet, tribunals have been quite unwilling in cases where the moral damages requests are made by respondent states. In fact, so far, tribunals have awarded no monetary compensation to states for non-material damages caused by mala fide conduct of investors. Although there has been no legal obstacle preventing awarding moral damages to states, tribunals have preferred to satisfy states by deploying alternative tools. This article discusses the role of moral damages in international investment arbitration together with the underlying reasons of tribunals’ unwillingness in terms of awarding monetary compensation to states for the non-material damage they have suffered in the light of relevant arbitral case law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International investment law
• moral damages
• abuse of process
• ICSID
• ISDS

Kaynakça

1. Andrea Bjorklund, The Role of Counterclaims in Rebalancing Investment Law (2013) 17(2) Lewis & Clark Law Review 461
2. Anthony Sinclair, Louise Fischer & Sarah Macrory, ICSID Arbitration: How long does it take? 4 Global Arb. Rev., (26 October 2009)
3. Bernd Ehle & Martin Dawidowicz, ‘Chapter 10: Moral Damages in Investment Arbitration, Commercial Arbitration and WTO Litigation’, in Jorge A. Huerta-Goldman , Antoine Romanetti , et al. (eds), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration, Global Trade Law Series, Volume 43 (Kluwer Law International 2013)
4. Borzu Sabahi, Chapter 6: Supplemental Compensation’ in ‘Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration: Principles and Practice [Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law (OUP 2011)]
5. Emmanuel Gaillard, Abuse of Process in International Arbitration, ICSID Review (2017)
6. Kyriaki Karadelis and Alison Ross, EDF Faces ICC Claim Over German Power Company Purchase, Global Arbitration Review (6 June 2012)
7. Matthew T. Parish, Annalise K. Newlson & Charles B. Rosenberg, Awarding Moral Damages to Respondent States in Investment Arbitration, 29 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 225, (2011)
8. Marc Allepuz, Moral Damages in International Investment Arbitration, Spain Arbitration Review | Revista del Club Español del Arbitraje, (© Club Español del Arbitraje; Wolters Kluwer España 2013, Volume 2013 Issue 17)

9. Melissa Ordonez, States’ counterclaims: how hard is it to counterattack in international investment arbitration? Int. A.L.R. 2019, 22(1), 27-45, 2019.
10. Patrick Dumberry, Compensation for Moral Damages in Investor-State Arbitration Disputes, Journal of International Arbitration, (© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2010, Volume 27 Issue 3)
11. Patrick Dumberry, Satisfaction as a Form of Reparation for Moral Damages Suffered by Investors and Respondent States in Investor-State Arbitration Disputes, 3 J. Int. Disp. Settlement 199 (2012)
12. Pierre Lalive and Laura Halonen, On the Availability of Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration, (2011) 2 Czech Yearbook of International Law 146.
13. Stephan Wittich, Non-Material Damage and Monetary Reparation in International Law, 15 Finnish Y.B. Int’l L. (2004)
14. Subhiksh Vasudev, Damages for Non-Material Harm in Investment Treaty Arbitratio’, in Matthias Scherer (ed), ASA Bulletin, (© Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage; Kluwer Law International 2019, Volume 37 Issue 1)
15. Todd Allee & Clint Peinhardt, Contingent Credibility: The Reputational Effects of Investment Treaty Disputes on Foreign Direct Investment 17-18 (25 September 2008)
16. Yaraslau Kryvoi, Counterclaims in Investor-State Arbitration, 21 Minn. J. Int’l L. 216 (2012)
17. Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Gary Born’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, 18 July 2008.
18. Cementownia “NowaHuta” S.A. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/2, Award, 17 September 2009
19. Desert Line Projects L.L.C. v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008.
20. Europe Cement Investment & Trade v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/2, Award, 13 August 2009.
21. Lundin Tunisia B. V. v. Republic of Tunisia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/30, Award, 22 December 2015
22. Lusitania Cases, United States–Germany Mixed Claims Commission, 1 November 1923, Volume VII, U.N.R.I.A.A.